> On Thursday, 28 May 2020, 17:03:57 GMT+1, James Cook via agora-discussion > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > In fact, it may be a good idea to have two separate tiers of crimes anyway: > > small infractions that earn you some blots, and serious ones that come with > > a > > punishment you can't pay off. I think that'd reconcile the ideas of > > "justice as > > a game mechanic" and "justice as a way to deal with bad faith > > actors/actions." > > If some justice is intended to be a game mechanic, I'd prefer the > crimes related to those to not be described as rule violations (SHALL > NOT, etc). > It doesn't really sound fun to me for the written rules of a game to > deliberately not be an accurate description of the expected boundaries > of gameplay.
I fully agree with this. It's fine to have actions where "you're allowed to do this but there will be consequences", and it's fine to have illegal actions, but please don't mix the two. -- ais523
