On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:52 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 2/10/2022 9:23 PM, Aspen via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 8:24 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business > > <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> I point a finger at Murphy for failure to judge CFJ 3940 in a timely > >> fashion, > >> in violation of Rule 591. > >> I note that this offense is minor (about two hours late) and likely > >> forgivable. > >> I also note that Murphy attempted to award emself blue glitter for their > >> judgement, > >> which failed because of this violation. > >> (This is how I intend to handle all violations except for extreme > >> circumstances. > >> Remember that a judge can file a motion to extend their case by > >> announcement.) > > > > > > I wish to register my strong personal disapproval for this action. I'm > > generally opposed to aggressive enforcement of deadlines to begin > > with. I am all the more opposed to enforcement against tardiness that > > has already been rectified. If no one noticed at the time, then I do > > not believe that it makes any sense to impose a penalty after the > > fact. > > I first instinctively agreed with Aspen, but on further reflection I'd > like to try being strict about rules breaches, including even minor tardiness. > > A few times in the past few years, I've come up with an scheme/idea, but > it depends on officers being on time (getting a proposal adopted before > the end of the month, posting a tournament update, or something). The > officer is late. I lose my scheme and any time investment. Overall it's > less fun for everyone because it was interesting gameplay. But the > officer is very sorry. And I (and we collectively) truly do understand, > Agora isn't anyone's #1 priority, and I'm late often too. It happens. No > biggie. > > But still, I've lost my invested effort due to the breach. Since our > current culture treats a finger-point as a "true" rebuke, I'd feel bad for > pointing or not accepting an officer's informal apology. So I don't > penalize them, but I feel annoyed. As a result, I might get a bit > passive-aggressive. Maybe snipe at something e says or vote against eir > unrelated proposal, whatever. It's petty and the lateness is truly nbd - > but the feeling's there for a few days and need to watch myself, or step > away from the game for a little. Not fun. And I'm less likely to try the > next scheme (which is the point of the game after all). > > I would VERY MUCH RATHER just be able to say "no worries, it happens, but > here's a Blot - that's not a rebuke, that's just a technical > nearly-automatic penalty the game applies, no one has to feel bad about > it." Then we can move on.
I don't think I have an argument against your main point here. My gut reaction is to disagree with it, but that isn't an argument. > Any forgiveness can/should be dealt with on the sentencing side - we've > got mechanisms for forgiveness, reduction in penalties, or just asking for > a BBG. And if that's still to onerous, the obvious approach is to change > the rules - reduce penalties for weekly reports, make the first missed > officer's duty in a quarter a Warning, or any of a dozen other things. If we go this route, I think we should ease penalties fairly aggressively. > Other side effects of our current policy: > > - Challenging for new players. It's written in the rules that fingers are > to be pointed at breaches, and we even *reward* for doing so. Then the > first time a newb points a finger, thinking to pick up a JC (a great way > for a new player to gain when auctions are out of reach), we say "we don't > do that around here - goodfaithhonor and all that". They then need to > navigate a hidden, against-the-text-of-the-rules social pressure while > older players are comfortable knowing which fingers they can and can't > safely point, with the difference being relatively-arbitrary social > pressure. Also not fun. I agree that our current system is objectively terrible in this regard. I've never been a huge fan of the "rewards for pointing fingers" thing. I think it sends a message that's out of alignment with the way that I was hoping we'd approach this. There are ways of fixing that dissonance, including removing the reward, setting guidelines for when to point a finger, or penalty easing (even in the absence of harsher enforcement). I agree something needs to be change, but there are options for what to change. > - The economy. We've taken a general strong stand against pending > proposals for free, to support the pendant economy. Following that logic, > why would we depress/downright destroy the BBG economy? *continues to think that "it makes the economy work" is a bad reason to make things more difficult* -Aspen
