-------- Original Message -------- On May 28, 2020, 11:11 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > 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.
(This might be formatted weirdly because I'm on mobile.) I'm not entirely sure how formally defining them separately is mixing them, as opposed to the current system which totally does mix them. Failing to do a weekly duty violates a SHALL. If the promoter failed to distribute any proposals, we'd probably all assume it was an error caused by real life busyness and forgive it. If e distributed all but one and said e has no intention to ever distribute that one because e doesn't like it, all of us would take that a lot more seriously. But it's currently the exact same rule violation (and both are, afaict, the Class 2 Crime of Tardiness) either way. To me, in general, the lower crimes that are blotworthy would be ones that are easily (and frequently) done by mistake. The blot then says "be more careful next time". The higher crimes that should have unforgivable consequences (such as a temporary voting strength reduction you can't temove) are ones that have to be committed intentionally. I'd say the missing distribution is blotworthy but the intentional malfeasance should be treated separately and more seriously.
