Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AGAINST (scammable) how? Come now, the scam-master is asking *me* how to scam it? -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:24:37 + Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 30 Nov 2008, at 16:41, Taral wrote: AGAINST (scammable) how? I just told my dog that I purported to ratify a document. (No, not really, but that illustrates one of the problems.) -- Elysion
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
Murphy wrote: Again, bring back Infractions. (Yes, ais523's proto, but that brings up another issue that was observed several years back: one way to delay progress in a given area is to float a proto and then fail to submit it as a proposal.) Sorry, I've been busy recently. Someone else feel free to submit it, or I'll do it myself once I have time to go over it and correct for any glaring mistakes. -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I must live in an alternate universe where some players play the game by not even paying attention to cases going on around them. Oh, wait... damn. Whereas the rest of us live in an alternate universe where players blatantly ignore SHALLs, admit it, continue to ignore them, and 2 people won't support a criminal CFJ. So, if a crime is low priority enough that you can't find two supporters, why clog the courts with a CFJ process? Suggested compromise: bring back infractions. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
On 25 Nov 2008, at 19:37, Kerim Aydin wrote: So, if a crime is low priority enough that you can't find two supporters, why clog the courts with a CFJ process? Yay the rules are irrelevant!! Let's use telepathy to determine everyone's intentions? Wait, we have that, it's called equity... Suggested compromise: bring back infractions. ais523 has a proto to do this.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: On 25 Nov 2008, at 19:37, Kerim Aydin wrote: So, if a crime is low priority enough that you can't find two supporters, why clog the courts with a CFJ process? Yay the rules are irrelevant!! Let's use telepathy to determine everyone's intentions? Wait, we have that, it's called equity... 0. Criminal cases still turn on intentions, you have to knowingly break the rules to be punished. You're not changing that at all. 1. Just stop being an ass. Even when we had infractions, it still required someone to support it or report it. Many went unreported, but you were taking a simple risk of punishment if you counted on that. 2. When you break a SHALL, you take a risk. Half the time you'd get off with an Excused anyway because it was accidental. Why would anyone be wanting to support criminality, unless they had an axe to grind? 3. The instant-reflexive CFJ was just being used when two people were annoyed at each other. If this passes I shall prove my point. I believe I have 5 CFJs permitted per week? And I won't need support to call criminal cases? And an allegation can technically include false statements without worry (after all, an allegation is not a claim of truth)? This might be fun. 4. An analogy: if you accidentally (and it was pretty clearly an accident) take one extra bill while playing Mononpoly, someone might say put it back but not get annoyed. Similarly, if you're a couple days late with a weekly report, well, maybe no-one's too bothered. -goethe.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. The instant-reflexive CFJ was just being used when two people were annoyed at each other. If this passes I shall prove my point. I believe I have 5 CFJs permitted per week? And I won't need support to call criminal cases? And an allegation can technically include false statements without worry (after all, an allegation is not a claim of truth)? This might be fun. Uh, except you're forbidden from making false allegations by the same proposal?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, comex wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. The instant-reflexive CFJ was just being used when two people were annoyed at each other. If this passes I shall prove my point. I believe I have 5 CFJs permitted per week? And I won't need support to call criminal cases? And an allegation can technically include false statements without worry (after all, an allegation is not a claim of truth)? This might be fun. Uh, except you're forbidden from making false allegations by the same proposal? I expect to enjoy the court cases resulting.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. When you break a SHALL, you take a risk. Half the time you'd get off with an Excused anyway because it was accidental. Why would anyone be wanting to support criminality, unless they had an axe to grind? Because it means that SHALLs are ignored. Since the with 2 support requirement was added, in several months, only three people have been found GUILTY of anything, one of which was a partnership: out of these, only ehird was actually punished (for Phill). Each of the other two cases included a sentence of APOLOGY, which the ninny blatantly ignored. In a totalitarian state, everyone is always guilty of something, so that the police always have a reason to arrest anyone. Agora does not have a totalitarian government, but as everyone racks up unpunished Rule violations, it is the community which will, more and more, always have a reason to bring criminal charges against someone thought to be acting improperly. The change to require support has turned the criminal court into a glorified system of equity: nobody can be punished even for the worst Rule violation if it's considered in the best interests of the game, and more importantly, anyone can-- and people do-- get away with minor but intentional Rule violations because nobody cares enough to gather support and punish them. This is already the case with contracts, which too often are assigned null equations, often by judges judging long after the point has been made moot, and no doubt you want to extend the rule of Equity as far as possible, Goethe, but I think that officers should publish their reports on time, that the CotC should assign cases on time, that judges should judge on time (yes, including myself), that ninnies should apologize, and obey equations, and that the Rules of Agora not be considered an obstacle to the orderly functioning of the game. The PBA allows fines, and the Rules allow community service. Let them be used: the CotC can handle whatever frivolous criminal cases may arise. A war of criminal case and counter-case was no common occurrence before July, and whatever pointless cases were created were called primarily because no Rule prohibited it. If you intend to call frivolous criminal cases when this proposal passes, I assume you will be prepared to apologize. Proto-proto: Abolish the pre-trial period. It delays criminal and equity cases excessively, especially the latter because it's rarely ended early; the judge can solicit defenses as necessary.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
comex wrote: Because it means that SHALLs are ignored. Since the with 2 support requirement was added, in several months, only three people have been found GUILTY of anything, one of which was a partnership: out of these, only ehird was actually punished (for Phill). Each of the other two cases included a sentence of APOLOGY, which the ninny blatantly ignored. Then initiate criminal cases for failure to apologize. I'll support. anyone can-- and people do-- get away with minor but intentional Rule violations because nobody cares enough to gather support and punish them. Again, bring back Infractions. (Yes, ais523's proto, but that brings up another issue that was observed several years back: one way to delay progress in a given area is to float a proto and then fail to submit it as a proposal.) Proto-proto: Abolish the pre-trial period. It delays criminal and equity cases excessively, especially the latter because it's rarely ended early; the judge can solicit defenses as necessary. AGAINST. Controversial cases benefit from the pre-trial period, and uncontroversial cases should go through a more lightweight system.
