This is a good suggestion, Aris. I withdraw my prior intent proposals and
resubmit this proposal:
/
Title: Intent is Important (v1.1)
AI: 2
Author: D Margaux
Coauthor: Aris
[Comment: I don’t think we should be fining people for actions unless they
knew or should know they are violating the rules (what the criminal law
calls a “guilty mind”).]
In Rule 2531, in the list that follows this text:
“Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if:”
Add the following text as paragraph 3:
“(3) the perp likely did not know and reasonably should not be expected to
have known that e violated the rules as a result of the action or inaction
that is the reason for the levy;”
And renumber the rest of the list accordingly.
/
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 7:26 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe try “does not appear to have known”? Otherwise, the gamestate depends
> on someone’s actual mental state, which is impossible to determine given
> the limits of current technology.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 4:24 PM D. Margaux wrote:
>
> > Crap.
> >
> > I withdraw that proposal. I resubmit it with AI = 2 and author D.
> Margaux.
> >
> > > On May 26, 2019, at 7:23 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> > >
> > > I don’t think we should be fining people for actions unless they knew
> or
> > should know they are violating the rules (what the criminal law calls a
> > “guilty mind”).
> > >
> > > I submit a proposal:
> > >
> > > Title: Intent is Important
> > >
> > > In Rule 2531, in the list that follows this text:
> > >
> > > “Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if:”
> > >
> > > Add the following text as paragraph 3:
> > >
> > > “(3) the perp did not know and reasonably should not be expected to
> have
> > known that e violated the rules as a result of the action or inaction
> that
> > is the reason for the levy;”
> > >
> > > And renumber the rest of the list accordingly.
> >
>
--
D. Margaux
