Re: DIS: Re: BUS: punishment reform

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Comments inline

Comments on comments inline...


> >  The voting strength of a player on an Agoran Decision is reduced
> >  by 1 for every 3 weevils in eir possession.
> 
> Voting strength is an integer, right? I kind of like the idea of this 
> immediately reducing voting strength -- we could do that by allowing
> fractional strengths or by multiplying all strengths in the rules by 3.

I don't mind the idea, but don't want to bring major changes to the voting
system into this directly (keeping it modular), so will save this for later.


> >  At the beginning of each quarter, half (rounded down) of each
> >  fugitive's weevils are destroyed.
> 
> Maybe not just fugitives? Currently all punishments wear off if ignored for a 
> while, and I'm inclined to believe that is a good thing. This may also 
> encourage
> deregistration to get rid of fines. Also also, this will never let a person 
> get
> down to zero. Not sure if that's a good thing or not.

I'm neutral on making it decay for players, though I'm not worried about the
"deregistration to avoid punishment" given that a minimum 30-day timeout is
a punishment in itself.

The "never down to 0" is on purpose - it requires someone returning even after
a long absence to make a token gesture of penance.  It was a feature of the old
system and the source of the "fugitive" list in the Herald's report.


> >  - If the violation is described by the rules as a Class N crime,
> >then N is the base value; otherwise the base value is the power 
> >of the rule that was violated, rounded up.
>
> Not sure if power is the best way to guess rules importance; I think it would 
> be 
> rather arbitrary most of the time.

I'm all ears if anyone has another system for a baseline "guess"...?  Just a
fixed number - maybe 2 - unless a crime is defined?


> >  Optionally, in the same message in which e imposes justice, the
> >  investigator CAN specify that the violation is forgivable, 
> >  specifying up to 10 words to be included in an apology.  If e
> >  does so, the perp CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge the value
> >  of the fine up to a maximum of 3 weevils from emself by publishing a
> >  formal apology of at least 200 words and including all the specified
> >  words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for 
> >  self-improvement.
> 
> If the fine is 4, can I apologize for 3? If so, make that more clear.

The wording was tricky on this bit. I wanted:
- the apology to not expunge past crimes.  So if you had 2 from an old
  crime, and got another 1 labelled "forgivable", you couldn't apologize
  for 3, just the 1 from the current crime.
- the max reduction to be 3, so if you had a forgivable crime of 4, you
  could remove 3 and be left with 1.  
How about:
"CAN expunge either the value of the fine or 3 Weevils, whichever is 
lower"?  
(does that wording mean you can't expunge at all if they're equal?)


> >  If the Referee attempts to levy three or more INEFFECTIVE fines
> >  in a week, any player CAN, with two support, issue a writ of
> >  Impartial Arbitration Restoration, immediately making the position
> >  of Referee vacant. When a writ of Impartial Arbitration
> >  Restoration is issued, the ADoP SHALL initiate an election for the
> >  Referee within a timely fashion.
> 
> Should we add "players SHALL NOT hold the office of referee when such a writ 
> is published"?

Not sure what you're trying to prevent here.  The way it reads, you SHALL
not do something for an instant when the writ is published?

DIS: Re: BUS: punishment reform

[Gaelan Steele]

Comments inline

> On Feb 27, 2018, at 2:52 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proto-proposal, the Lesson of the Weevils
> 
> 
> 
> Create the following Rule, Weevils, power-2:
> 
>  Weevils are an indestructible fixed currency with ownership 
>  restricted to persons.   A person with 1 or more weevils is 
>  Impure, a person with 0 weevils is Pure. An impure unregistered
>  person is a Fugitive. 
> 
>  To Levy a Fine of N on a person, where N is a positive integer, 
>  is to create N weevils in eir possession by announcement. To 
>  Expunge a weevil is to destroy it by announcement. If expunging
>  weevils would reduce a person's weevils to less than 0, their
>  weevils are instead reduced to 0 but the cost of expunging, if
>  any, is not reduced. Levying fines and destroying weevils are each 
>  secured with a power threshold of 1.7.  
> 
>  The Referee is an office, and the recordkeepor for Weevils.
> 
> 
> Create the following Rule, Penalties, power-3:
> 
>  Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an impure person CANNOT win 
>  the game.
> 
>  The voting strength of a player on an Agoran Decision is reduced
>  by 1 for every 3 weevils in eir possession.

Voting strength is an integer, right? I kind of like the idea of this 
immediately reducing voting strength -- we could do that by allowing fractional 
strengths or by multiplying all strengths in the rules by 3. 

> 
> 
> Create the following Rule, Forgiveness, power-1.7:
> 
>  A player CAN spend X [PAotM Currency TBD] to expunge X weevils in 
>  eir possession, or to expunge 2xX weevils in another person's 
>  possession. 

I personally prefer 2X instead of 2xX. "Twice X" also works. 

> 
>  At the beginning of each quarter, half (rounded down) of each
>  fugitive's weevils are destroyed.

Maybe not just fugitives? Currently all punishments wear off if ignored for a 
while, and I'm inclined to believe that is a good thing. This may also 
encourage   deregistration to get rid of fines. Also also, this will never let 
a person get down to zero. Not sure if that's a good thing or not. 

> 
> 
> Amend Rule 2478 (Vigilante Justice) to read:
> 
>  A player CAN by announcement, but subject to the provisions of
>  this rule, Point eir Finger at a person (the perp) who plays the 
>  game, citing an alleged violation of the rules by that person.
> 
>  When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate
>  the allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL conclude the
>  investigation by:
> 
>  - Imposing the Cold Hand of Justice on the perp, as described 
>elsewhere; or
> 
>  - if e believes that no rules violation occurred or that it would
>be ILLEGAL to levy a fine for it, announcing the Finger Pointing 
>to be Shenanigans.
> 
>  There is no limit on how many times a player may impose the Cold
>  Hand of Justice per week.
> 
>  The Referee is by default the investigator for all Finger
>  Pointing. When a Finger, other than the Arbitor's, is Pointed over
>  an allegation related to the official duties or powers of the
>  Referee, then the Arbitor CAN, by announcement, take over the
>  investigation and thereby become the investigator.
> 
>  The Referee CANNOT Point eir Finger. The Arbitor CANNOT Point eir
>  Finger at the Referee.
This seems like a good time to patch the "point finger than deputize" bug you 
used to get around this. 
> 
> Create the following Rule, Sentencing Guidelines, power 1.7:
> 
>  When the rules authorize an investigator to impose the Cold Hand of 
>  Justice for a violation, e CAN do so by levying a fine on the perp 
>  with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2x the base value of the
>  violation, within the following guidelines:
> 
>  - If the violation is described by the rules as a Class N crime,
>then N is the base value; otherwise the base value is the power 
>of the rule that was violated, rounded up.

Not sure if power is the best way to guess rules importance; I think it would 
be rather arbitrary most of the time. Also, I'm wondering if a shorthand such 
as SHALL(3) for defining a crime's class is a good idea. 

> 
>  - The fine is reduced to the degree that the violation is a minor, 
>accidental, and/or inconsequential infraction.
> 
>  - The fine is increased to the degree that the violation is wilful,
>profitable, egregious, or an abuse of an official position.

s/wilful/willful

> 
>  Optionally, in the same message in which e imposes justice, the
>  investigator CAN specify that the violation is forgivable, 
>  specifying up to 10 words to be included in an apology.  If e
>  does so, the perp CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge the value
>  of the fine up to a