On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 17:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/6/2020 10:28 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > >>> This is great! but I'm likely to vote AGAINST unless we get a > >>> crime/infraction distinction and this becomes an infraction, i.e. not > >>> actually against the rules. > >> > >> Is this something that is currently being proposed, or no? I know > >> there's something related to blots and stuff in the proposal pool > >> currently, but I don't remember what it actually does. If not, I could > >> probably add some form of that to the proposal. > > > > No, G. sketched an idea in the thread "Rule Violation Options" but it > > hasn't been turned into a proposal yet. The idea is that actions > > defined as "crimes" are rule violations but actions described as > > "infractions" aren't, but still incur penalties. > > Wasn't there a longer proto before that, by someone else? The final draft > would have to include going through all current SHALLs and SHALL NOTs in > the rules and classifying them, amending a lot of rules (I definitely > wasn't leading the drafting on that!) > > -G.
I remember this topic being discussed, but I don't remember an actual proto. So much has been going on lately that I'll readily believe there was such a proto. Closest I could find was this by nch (May 27, subject "Re: DIS: Back-Awarding of Silver Quills") > Referee Cards were fun, and there's no reason they couldn't work with an asset > system like the upcoming Sets (except for the confusion of names). You'd just > make Green and Yellow payable with different amounts of Blot-B-Gones, and Red > would probably not be payable at all. > > 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." and then later from you: > Sure, that's why you divide things into felonies, misdemeanors, traffic > fines, civil offenses, etc. But you write that into the law so it's clear > you don't use the same language for all of those. In a game sense, in this > iterative social contract (where your "reputation" is part of the > trade-off) it's good to be clear between "yeah that's part of playing the > game, we'll give you a blot but we won't be mad" and "we're going to yell > a lot, consider your victory tainted, and try to hit you with heavy > penalties". Just so we all get along better, you know? > > We don't have that right now - our "Class N" system is really incomplete > and inconsistent. Previously (when we had differential designations we > didn't have any violations where we didn't say that it was either a Crime > or Infraction (that is, every SHALL NOT was paired with whether it was a > Crime or Infraction). We'd have to go to every SHALL NOT in the rules and > categorize it to set this up again. > > It's especially important if we want to give the Officers any duties that > involve exploitable powers - want to be clear "we're giving you these > powers and don't expect you to abuse them, or the subgame is ruined." > > -G. - Falsifian
