On 6/5/2020 11:43 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 at 18:20, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> On 6/5/2020 10:58 AM, James Cook wrote: >>> On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 at 02:47, Rebecca wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 12:42 PM Aris Merchant wrote: >>>> >>>>> What do y'all think of these? If there's a strong consensus for one or >>>>> the other, I'll only submit that one. >>>>> >>>>> -Aris >>>>> --- >>>>> Title: Rule Violations (option 1) >>>>> Adoption index: 3.0 >>>>> Author: Aris >>>>> Co-author(s): >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If the author's proposal "Rule Violations (option 2)" has been or >>>>> would be adopted with a greater proportion of support, then this >>>>> proposal has no effect. Otherwise: >>>>> >>>>> Amend Rule 869, "How to Join and Leave Agora", by appending at the end of >>>>> the >>>>> fourth paragraph: >>>>> Players SHOULD NOT violate the rules. >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> Title: Rule Violations (option 2) >>>>> Adoption index: 3.0 >>>>> Author: Aris >>>>> Co-author(s): >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If the author's proposal "Rule Violations (option 1)" has been or >>>>> would be adopted with a greater proportion of support, then this >>>>> proposal has no effect. Otherwise: >>>>> >>>>> Amend Rule 869, "How to Join and Leave Agora", by appending at the end of >>>>> the >>>>> fourth paragraph: >>>>> Players SHOULD NOT violate the rules doing so is manifestly in the >>>>> best interests of the game due to extraordinary circumstances. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I would vote against both because they both add text to the rules that we >>>> don't need and both are already perfectly implicit anyway. But I would >>>> greatly prefer the first one, given a choice (the second also has a typo, >>>> it is missing the word "unless") >>> >>> The first version also seems implicit to me. If we both feel that way >>> I take that as evidence it might not actually resolve our >>> disagreement. I think I would be PRESENT or a weak FOR on that one. >> >> When you talk about "implicit", it strikes me that this is the sort of >> broad statement that belongs in R101, of things that are "deeply implicit" >> but have come up persistently anyway. I.e "Agora is a game, but it's a >> game that doesn't end when someone wins, and by the way we expect you not >> to break the rules, otherwise you aren't playing the game". >> >> Actually, it's not implicit at all: R101 currently reads "acting in >> accordance with the Rules". That's fairly clear, but takes a little >> thought to get at. So maybe just strengthen/clarify what that means? >> >> -G. > > I forgot about R101. That makes the first option seem more redundant. > The exception laid out in the second option seems less implicit, > though. Is it general enough to belong in R101?
I don't think either is useful personally. Option 1 is covered by R101 currently. Option 2 entirely neglects the nuance we've been discussing in what constitutes a rules breakage, and actually opens it up more by suggesting there's reasons to break the rules. It's one of those "better to stay silent than say something halfway" sort of things. I think we should have a standalone, full rule that accompanies the definitions we've been talking about re-writing. E.g. "Certain actions are defined as infractions - these incur penalties but not rule violations per se. Certain actions are defined as crimes. You're breaking the rules if you do those. Really, don't do those." (This is included in sections on referee procedure, etc.). I would also avoid the SHOULD language entirely, put those words in common terms that can be interpreted independent of our terms of art.
