Re: DIS: [Protos] Rule Violation Options
On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 06:26, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 10:14 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > > > On 6/6/2020 9:33 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > >> 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." > > > > > > That would be nice. Is that how crimes and infractions were > > > distinguished in the past? > > > > > > - Falsifian > > > > > > > No, I don't think we've ever been explicit about that. > > > > It was there implicitly, to a degree. The penalty structure was different > > (higher penalties for crimes), and the method of finding fault made the > > "crime" process more serious (you had to be convicted in court for a > > crime, but an infraction was a direct penalty that could be applied by > > announcement). And the Agoran custom was at the time was to shrug at > > infractions but always apply them (i.e. pretty much any late report would > > earn you a blot infraction, IIRC, so a greater fraction of players carried > > blot balances - side note that's what made rebellion work) but hesitate at > > crimes unless there was malice/strong intent. But there was nothing that > > explicitly said "infractions aren't really cheating but crimes are > > definitely cheating" or anything like that. > > Let's make it explicit this time! I like it when things are explicitly > written out. :) > > -Aris I think P.S.S. said e was going to work on this in the thread "The dumbest idea I've ever had...?". - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Protos] Rule Violation Options
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 10:14 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 6/6/2020 9:33 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > >> 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." > > > > That would be nice. Is that how crimes and infractions were > > distinguished in the past? > > > > - Falsifian > > > > No, I don't think we've ever been explicit about that. > > It was there implicitly, to a degree. The penalty structure was different > (higher penalties for crimes), and the method of finding fault made the > "crime" process more serious (you had to be convicted in court for a > crime, but an infraction was a direct penalty that could be applied by > announcement). And the Agoran custom was at the time was to shrug at > infractions but always apply them (i.e. pretty much any late report would > earn you a blot infraction, IIRC, so a greater fraction of players carried > blot balances - side note that's what made rebellion work) but hesitate at > crimes unless there was malice/strong intent. But there was nothing that > explicitly said "infractions aren't really cheating but crimes are > definitely cheating" or anything like that. Let's make it explicit this time! I like it when things are explicitly written out. :) -Aris
Re: DIS: [Protos] Rule Violation Options
On 6/6/2020 9:33 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >> 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." > > That would be nice. Is that how crimes and infractions were > distinguished in the past? > > - Falsifian > No, I don't think we've ever been explicit about that. It was there implicitly, to a degree. The penalty structure was different (higher penalties for crimes), and the method of finding fault made the "crime" process more serious (you had to be convicted in court for a crime, but an infraction was a direct penalty that could be applied by announcement). And the Agoran custom was at the time was to shrug at infractions but always apply them (i.e. pretty much any late report would earn you a blot infraction, IIRC, so a greater fraction of players carried blot balances - side note that's what made rebellion work) but hesitate at crimes unless there was malice/strong intent. But there was nothing that explicitly said "infractions aren't really cheating but crimes are definitely cheating" or anything like that. -G.
Re: DIS: [Protos] Rule Violation Options
> 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." That would be nice. Is that how crimes and infractions were distinguished in the past? - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Protos] Rule Violation Options
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 > 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.
Re: DIS: [Protos] Rule Violation Options
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 at 18:20, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion 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? - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Protos] Rule Violation Options
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.
Re: DIS: [Protos] Rule Violation Options
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 at 02:47, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 12:42 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> 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. I think I prefer the second, sort of grudgingly. The exception it describes is not part of my personal view of the rules, but (a) our escape valve for distributing unpended proposals depends on this point of view and (b) if it's in the rules, then I guess the rules are okay with it... so, I think it has my vote. I'd prefer lower-case "should" based on ais523's argument. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Protos] Rule Violation Options
what happens if both proposals pass with equal support? On 6/4/2020 10:41 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion 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.
Re: DIS: [Protos] Rule Violation Options
On Friday, 5 June 2020, 03:41:58 GMT+1, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion 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. > Players SHOULD NOT violate the rules. This should be a lowercase "should". It's the ordinary-language definition we want here, not a definition that tries to define things in terms of Agora's rules (otherwise we just have a circular definition). -- ais523
Re: DIS: [Protos] Rule Violation Options
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 12:42 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> 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") -- >From R. Lee
DIS: [Protos] Rule Violation Options
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.
