Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

[ATMunn .]

Alright, thanks. I guess I should have more confidence in myself.

As for the victory elections thing, I might actually go ahead and repeal
that when I actually post the proposal.

As for when I'll post it, I'll probably post it later today, if nobody else
says anything.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 9:31 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

> No I think that's an actually good proposal that provides a path to
> victory that might be conceivable while also incentivising strict
> rules enforcement. I would likely vote FOR it in its current form.
> Although that said, perhaps if this comes in Victory Elections should
> go, for in my opinion they're a bit similar.
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
> > I know that I for one read over it and liked the idea and wasn't sure
> > whether it was would work as is, but didn't have thoughts on how to
> improve
> > it, therefore I didn't comment. I'm sorry that I wasn't very helpful,
> but I
> > don't have ideas on how I could be.
> >
> >
> > On 10/15/2017 08:35 PM, ATMunn . wrote:
> >>
> >> Hopefully this doesn't sound like I'm begging for attention or
> something,
> >> but this seems to have been ignored. I don't mind that much, I'd just
> like
> >> to know what stuff needs improvement. Have people just not noticed it
> yet,
> >> does it really not have much wrong with it, or am I just too impatient?
> >>
> >> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:55 PM, ATMunn .  >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Okay, the second draft is finished. I've changed a bunch of stuff,
> >> it's almost a completely different proposal now. I've taken into
> >> consideration almost everything Aris and Alexis mentioned, so I've
> >> given them co-authorship as well.
> >> I'm sure it's still got plenty of flaws. But it should be better.
> >> I'm just going to post this and go to bed now. I'll see what
> >> people think in the morning.
> >>
> >> Title: "A Reward for Obedience v2"
> >> Author: ATMunn
> >> Co-Author(s): Aris, Alexis
> >> AI: 1
> >>
> >> Create a new power-1 rule titled "Medals of Honour"
> >> {
> >> Medals of Honour are a destructible fixed currency tracked by
> >> the Herald.
> >>
> >> [One note on this section here: I don't know whether or not
> >> it's implied that players should be able to, by some means or
> >> another, challenge whether or not a player is eligible if e
> >> believes it is invalid.]
> >> In the first week of an Agoran Month, any player CAN declare
> >> emself to be eligible for a Medal of Honour by announcement if all
> >> of the following are true:
> >> * E has made at least 1 message to a public forum in the last
> >> Agoran month.
> >> [I really don't like having to include this, but if I don't
> >> then players that literally do nothing can be eligible for Medals
> >> of Honour.]
> >> * E does not have negative Karma.
> >> * In the last Agoran month, e has not had a Card issued to em.
> >> [I'm not exactly sure how to word the broken pledge thing, so
> >> I've left it out for now.]
> >>
> >> [I've never written a rule containing an Agoran Decision
> >> before, so I'm sure there's lots of flaws in this. I mainly copied
> >> stuff from various places in the rules.]
> >> In the second week of an Agoran Month, if there are any
> >> players who are eligible for a Medal of Honour, the Herald CAN, by
> >> announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, initiate an Agoran
> >> Decision on who is to be awarded a Medal of Honour.
> >> For this decision, the valid votes are all players who are
> >> eligible for a Medal of Honour, the vote collector is the Herald,
> >> and the voting method is instant-runoff.
> >> Upon the resolution of this decision, its outcome is awarded a
> >> Medal of Honour.
> >>
> >> If, at any time, any player has 6 or more Medals of Honour,
> >> and e has not won via this rule previously, e can win the game by
> >> announcement, destroying all of eir Medals of Honour.
> >> }
> >>
> >> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:18 PM, ATMunn .  >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks, both of you, for your suggestions. I'm working on a
> >> revised version at the moment. One idea I had, regarding what
> >> Alexis said about the idea of players declaring themselves
> >> eligible for a Badge of Honor, (now Medal of Honour) is the
> >> idea of the recordkeepor initiating an Agoran Decision on who
> >> will get the medal. All players who declared themselves
> >> eligible for a medal at the time of the initiation of the
> >> Agoran Decision would be the possible votes. This would ease
> >> 

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

[VJ Rada]

No I think that's an actually good proposal that provides a path to
victory that might be conceivable while also incentivising strict
rules enforcement. I would likely vote FOR it in its current form.
Although that said, perhaps if this comes in Victory Elections should
go, for in my opinion they're a bit similar.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> I know that I for one read over it and liked the idea and wasn't sure
> whether it was would work as is, but didn't have thoughts on how to improve
> it, therefore I didn't comment. I'm sorry that I wasn't very helpful, but I
> don't have ideas on how I could be.
>
>
> On 10/15/2017 08:35 PM, ATMunn . wrote:
>>
>> Hopefully this doesn't sound like I'm begging for attention or something,
>> but this seems to have been ignored. I don't mind that much, I'd just like
>> to know what stuff needs improvement. Have people just not noticed it yet,
>> does it really not have much wrong with it, or am I just too impatient?
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:55 PM, ATMunn . > > wrote:
>>
>> Okay, the second draft is finished. I've changed a bunch of stuff,
>> it's almost a completely different proposal now. I've taken into
>> consideration almost everything Aris and Alexis mentioned, so I've
>> given them co-authorship as well.
>> I'm sure it's still got plenty of flaws. But it should be better.
>> I'm just going to post this and go to bed now. I'll see what
>> people think in the morning.
>>
>> Title: "A Reward for Obedience v2"
>> Author: ATMunn
>> Co-Author(s): Aris, Alexis
>> AI: 1
>>
>> Create a new power-1 rule titled "Medals of Honour"
>> {
>> Medals of Honour are a destructible fixed currency tracked by
>> the Herald.
>>
>> [One note on this section here: I don't know whether or not
>> it's implied that players should be able to, by some means or
>> another, challenge whether or not a player is eligible if e
>> believes it is invalid.]
>> In the first week of an Agoran Month, any player CAN declare
>> emself to be eligible for a Medal of Honour by announcement if all
>> of the following are true:
>> * E has made at least 1 message to a public forum in the last
>> Agoran month.
>> [I really don't like having to include this, but if I don't
>> then players that literally do nothing can be eligible for Medals
>> of Honour.]
>> * E does not have negative Karma.
>> * In the last Agoran month, e has not had a Card issued to em.
>> [I'm not exactly sure how to word the broken pledge thing, so
>> I've left it out for now.]
>>
>> [I've never written a rule containing an Agoran Decision
>> before, so I'm sure there's lots of flaws in this. I mainly copied
>> stuff from various places in the rules.]
>> In the second week of an Agoran Month, if there are any
>> players who are eligible for a Medal of Honour, the Herald CAN, by
>> announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, initiate an Agoran
>> Decision on who is to be awarded a Medal of Honour.
>> For this decision, the valid votes are all players who are
>> eligible for a Medal of Honour, the vote collector is the Herald,
>> and the voting method is instant-runoff.
>> Upon the resolution of this decision, its outcome is awarded a
>> Medal of Honour.
>>
>> If, at any time, any player has 6 or more Medals of Honour,
>> and e has not won via this rule previously, e can win the game by
>> announcement, destroying all of eir Medals of Honour.
>> }
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:18 PM, ATMunn . > > wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, both of you, for your suggestions. I'm working on a
>> revised version at the moment. One idea I had, regarding what
>> Alexis said about the idea of players declaring themselves
>> eligible for a Badge of Honor, (now Medal of Honour) is the
>> idea of the recordkeepor initiating an Agoran Decision on who
>> will get the medal. All players who declared themselves
>> eligible for a medal at the time of the initiation of the
>> Agoran Decision would be the possible votes. This would ease
>> the load on the recordkeepor even more, as e would only have
>> to worry about initiating and resolving the election.
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Aris Merchant
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:50 AM, ATMunn .
>> >
>>
>> wrote:
>> > Title: A Reward for Obedience
>> > Author: 

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I know that I for one read over it and liked the idea and wasn't sure 
whether it was would work as is, but didn't have thoughts on how to 
improve it, therefore I didn't comment. I'm sorry that I wasn't very 
helpful, but I don't have ideas on how I could be.



On 10/15/2017 08:35 PM, ATMunn . wrote:
Hopefully this doesn't sound like I'm begging for attention or 
something, but this seems to have been ignored. I don't mind that 
much, I'd just like to know what stuff needs improvement. Have people 
just not noticed it yet, does it really not have much wrong with it, 
or am I just too impatient?


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:55 PM, ATMunn . > wrote:


Okay, the second draft is finished. I've changed a bunch of stuff,
it's almost a completely different proposal now. I've taken into
consideration almost everything Aris and Alexis mentioned, so I've
given them co-authorship as well.
I'm sure it's still got plenty of flaws. But it should be better.
I'm just going to post this and go to bed now. I'll see what
people think in the morning.

Title: "A Reward for Obedience v2"
Author: ATMunn
Co-Author(s): Aris, Alexis
AI: 1

Create a new power-1 rule titled "Medals of Honour"
{
    Medals of Honour are a destructible fixed currency tracked by
the Herald.

    [One note on this section here: I don't know whether or not
it's implied that players should be able to, by some means or
another, challenge whether or not a player is eligible if e
believes it is invalid.]
    In the first week of an Agoran Month, any player CAN declare
emself to be eligible for a Medal of Honour by announcement if all
of the following are true:
    * E has made at least 1 message to a public forum in the last
Agoran month.
    [I really don't like having to include this, but if I don't
then players that literally do nothing can be eligible for Medals
of Honour.]
    * E does not have negative Karma.
    * In the last Agoran month, e has not had a Card issued to em.
    [I'm not exactly sure how to word the broken pledge thing, so
I've left it out for now.]

    [I've never written a rule containing an Agoran Decision
before, so I'm sure there's lots of flaws in this. I mainly copied
stuff from various places in the rules.]
    In the second week of an Agoran Month, if there are any
players who are eligible for a Medal of Honour, the Herald CAN, by
announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, initiate an Agoran
Decision on who is to be awarded a Medal of Honour.
    For this decision, the valid votes are all players who are
eligible for a Medal of Honour, the vote collector is the Herald,
and the voting method is instant-runoff.
    Upon the resolution of this decision, its outcome is awarded a
Medal of Honour.

    If, at any time, any player has 6 or more Medals of Honour,
and e has not won via this rule previously, e can win the game by
announcement, destroying all of eir Medals of Honour.
}

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:18 PM, ATMunn . > wrote:

Thanks, both of you, for your suggestions. I'm working on a
revised version at the moment. One idea I had, regarding what
Alexis said about the idea of players declaring themselves
eligible for a Badge of Honor, (now Medal of Honour) is the
idea of the recordkeepor initiating an Agoran Decision on who
will get the medal. All players who declared themselves
eligible for a medal at the time of the initiation of the
Agoran Decision would be the possible votes. This would ease
the load on the recordkeepor even more, as e would only have
to worry about initiating and resolving the election.

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:50 AM, ATMunn .
>
wrote:
> Title: A Reward for Obedience
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-Author(s):
> AI: 1
>
> Create a new power-1 rule titled "Badges of Honor"
> {
>     Badges of Honor are an indestructible, player-owned
asset. The Referee
> is the recordkeepor for Badges of Honor.

I'd go with "Badges of Honor are a destructible fixed
currency tracked
by the Referee" (which would make the holder restriction
unnecessary),
or, if you want them to be transferable "Badges of Honor
are a liquid
currency tracked by the Referee. Ownership of Badges of
Honor is
 

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

[ATMunn .]

Okay, the second draft is finished. I've changed a bunch of stuff, it's
almost a completely different proposal now. I've taken into consideration
almost everything Aris and Alexis mentioned, so I've given them
co-authorship as well.
I'm sure it's still got plenty of flaws. But it should be better. I'm just
going to post this and go to bed now. I'll see what people think in the
morning.

Title: "A Reward for Obedience v2"
Author: ATMunn
Co-Author(s): Aris, Alexis
AI: 1

Create a new power-1 rule titled "Medals of Honour"
{
Medals of Honour are a destructible fixed currency tracked by the
Herald.

[One note on this section here: I don't know whether or not it's
implied that players should be able to, by some means or another, challenge
whether or not a player is eligible if e believes it is invalid.]
In the first week of an Agoran Month, any player CAN declare emself to
be eligible for a Medal of Honour by announcement if all of the following
are true:
* E has made at least 1 message to a public forum in the last Agoran
month.
[I really don't like having to include this, but if I don't then
players that literally do nothing can be eligible for Medals of Honour.]
* E does not have negative Karma.
* In the last Agoran month, e has not had a Card issued to em.
[I'm not exactly sure how to word the broken pledge thing, so I've left
it out for now.]

[I've never written a rule containing an Agoran Decision before, so I'm
sure there's lots of flaws in this. I mainly copied stuff from various
places in the rules.]
In the second week of an Agoran Month, if there are any players who are
eligible for a Medal of Honour, the Herald CAN, by announcement, and SHALL
in a timely fashion, initiate an Agoran Decision on who is to be awarded a
Medal of Honour.
For this decision, the valid votes are all players who are eligible for
a Medal of Honour, the vote collector is the Herald, and the voting method
is instant-runoff.
Upon the resolution of this decision, its outcome is awarded a Medal of
Honour.

If, at any time, any player has 6 or more Medals of Honour, and e has
not won via this rule previously, e can win the game by announcement,
destroying all of eir Medals of Honour.
}

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:18 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:

> Thanks, both of you, for your suggestions. I'm working on a revised
> version at the moment. One idea I had, regarding what Alexis said about the
> idea of players declaring themselves eligible for a Badge of Honor, (now
> Medal of Honour) is the idea of the recordkeepor initiating an Agoran
> Decision on who will get the medal. All players who declared themselves
> eligible for a medal at the time of the initiation of the Agoran Decision
> would be the possible votes. This would ease the load on the recordkeepor
> even more, as e would only have to worry about initiating and resolving the
> election.
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:50 AM, ATMunn . 
>> wrote:
>> > Title: A Reward for Obedience
>> > Author: ATMunn
>> > Co-Author(s):
>> > AI: 1
>> >
>> > Create a new power-1 rule titled "Badges of Honor"
>> > {
>> > Badges of Honor are an indestructible, player-owned asset. The
>> Referee
>> > is the recordkeepor for Badges of Honor.
>>
>> I'd go with "Badges of Honor are a destructible fixed currency tracked
>> by the Referee" (which would make the holder restriction unnecessary),
>> or, if you want them to be transferable "Badges of Honor are a liquid
>> currency tracked by the Referee. Ownership of Badges of Honor is
>> restricted to players".
>>
>> I have three further comments.  First, this might be something best
>> tracked by the Herald (maybe even the Tailor, as ribbons work on a
>> similar basis), who deals with matters of honor. E would have to check
>> the Referee's report, but right now the Referee has to check the
>> Herald's report, so there's really no change. Second, you should
>> probably change it not to have "badge" in the name, as badges are
>> already defined by Rule 2415. Third, you could consider having persons
>> be able to own them. If that was true, but gaining one was restricted
>> to players, the effect would be that a person who deregisters and
>> reregisters would get to keep eir badge count, the same way it is for
>> ribbons.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

[ATMunn .]

I don't really know what you mean by that, I don't think so?
Anyone can win via a Victory Election; this is much harder to achieve as
you have to not do anything wrong in order to be eligible.

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:33 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

> Isn't that just 1/6 of a Victory Election?
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:18 PM, ATMunn . 
> wrote:
> > Thanks, both of you, for your suggestions. I'm working on a revised
> version
> > at the moment. One idea I had, regarding what Alexis said about the idea
> of
> > players declaring themselves eligible for a Badge of Honor, (now Medal of
> > Honour) is the idea of the recordkeepor initiating an Agoran Decision on
> who
> > will get the medal. All players who declared themselves eligible for a
> medal
> > at the time of the initiation of the Agoran Decision would be the
> possible
> > votes. This would ease the load on the recordkeepor even more, as e would
> > only have to worry about initiating and resolving the election.
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Aris Merchant
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:50 AM, ATMunn . 
> wrote:
> >> > Title: A Reward for Obedience
> >> > Author: ATMunn
> >> > Co-Author(s):
> >> > AI: 1
> >> >
> >> > Create a new power-1 rule titled "Badges of Honor"
> >> > {
> >> > Badges of Honor are an indestructible, player-owned asset. The
> >> > Referee
> >> > is the recordkeepor for Badges of Honor.
> >>
> >> I'd go with "Badges of Honor are a destructible fixed currency tracked
> >> by the Referee" (which would make the holder restriction unnecessary),
> >> or, if you want them to be transferable "Badges of Honor are a liquid
> >> currency tracked by the Referee. Ownership of Badges of Honor is
> >> restricted to players".
> >>
> >> I have three further comments.  First, this might be something best
> >> tracked by the Herald (maybe even the Tailor, as ribbons work on a
> >> similar basis), who deals with matters of honor. E would have to check
> >> the Referee's report, but right now the Referee has to check the
> >> Herald's report, so there's really no change. Second, you should
> >> probably change it not to have "badge" in the name, as badges are
> >> already defined by Rule 2415. Third, you could consider having persons
> >> be able to own them. If that was true, but gaining one was restricted
> >> to players, the effect would be that a person who deregisters and
> >> reregisters would get to keep eir badge count, the same way it is for
> >> ribbons.
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

[VJ Rada]

Isn't that just 1/6 of a Victory Election?

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:18 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> Thanks, both of you, for your suggestions. I'm working on a revised version
> at the moment. One idea I had, regarding what Alexis said about the idea of
> players declaring themselves eligible for a Badge of Honor, (now Medal of
> Honour) is the idea of the recordkeepor initiating an Agoran Decision on who
> will get the medal. All players who declared themselves eligible for a medal
> at the time of the initiation of the Agoran Decision would be the possible
> votes. This would ease the load on the recordkeepor even more, as e would
> only have to worry about initiating and resolving the election.
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:50 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:
>> > Title: A Reward for Obedience
>> > Author: ATMunn
>> > Co-Author(s):
>> > AI: 1
>> >
>> > Create a new power-1 rule titled "Badges of Honor"
>> > {
>> > Badges of Honor are an indestructible, player-owned asset. The
>> > Referee
>> > is the recordkeepor for Badges of Honor.
>>
>> I'd go with "Badges of Honor are a destructible fixed currency tracked
>> by the Referee" (which would make the holder restriction unnecessary),
>> or, if you want them to be transferable "Badges of Honor are a liquid
>> currency tracked by the Referee. Ownership of Badges of Honor is
>> restricted to players".
>>
>> I have three further comments.  First, this might be something best
>> tracked by the Herald (maybe even the Tailor, as ribbons work on a
>> similar basis), who deals with matters of honor. E would have to check
>> the Referee's report, but right now the Referee has to check the
>> Herald's report, so there's really no change. Second, you should
>> probably change it not to have "badge" in the name, as badges are
>> already defined by Rule 2415. Third, you could consider having persons
>> be able to own them. If that was true, but gaining one was restricted
>> to players, the effect would be that a person who deregisters and
>> reregisters would get to keep eir badge count, the same way it is for
>> ribbons.
>>
>> -Aris
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

[Aris Merchant]

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:50 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> Title: A Reward for Obedience
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-Author(s):
> AI: 1
>
> Create a new power-1 rule titled "Badges of Honor"
> {
> Badges of Honor are an indestructible, player-owned asset. The Referee
> is the recordkeepor for Badges of Honor.

I'd go with "Badges of Honor are a destructible fixed currency tracked
by the Referee" (which would make the holder restriction unnecessary),
or, if you want them to be transferable "Badges of Honor are a liquid
currency tracked by the Referee. Ownership of Badges of Honor is
restricted to players".

I have three further comments.  First, this might be something best
tracked by the Herald (maybe even the Tailor, as ribbons work on a
similar basis), who deals with matters of honor. E would have to check
the Referee's report, but right now the Referee has to check the
Herald's report, so there's really no change. Second, you should
probably change it not to have "badge" in the name, as badges are
already defined by Rule 2415. Third, you could consider having persons
be able to own them. If that was true, but gaining one was restricted
to players, the effect would be that a person who deregisters and
reregisters would get to keep eir badge count, the same way it is for
ribbons.

-Aris

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 11:50 ATMunn .  wrote:

> Title: A Reward for Obedience
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-Author(s):
> AI: 1
>
> Create a new power-1 rule titled "Badges of Honor"
>
Nit: I prefer Honour :P

> {
> Badges of Honor are an indestructible, player-owned asset. The Referee
> is the recordkeepor for Badges of Honor.
>
> At the beginning of every Agoran month, the Referee CAN and SHALL
> award a Badge of Honor to any one player who is eligible for a Badge of
> Honor, if there are any.
>

This should specify the method of awarding a Badge of Honor (e.g. by
announcement). Additionally, it should specify a time limit; "in a timely
fashion" should be fine.

The restriction that e CAN only award a Badge of Honor to someone eligible.


> It is IMPOSSIBLE for the Referee to award more than one Badge of Honor
> in an Agoran month.
>
> A player is eligible for a Badge of Honor if all of the following
> statements are true:
> * E has made at least 1 action in the last Agoran month.
>
A message to a public forum should be sufficient for this.

> * E does not have negative Karma.
> * In the last Agoran month, e has not had a Card issued to em.
> * In the last Agoran month, e has not had eir Finger Pointing found
> Shenanigans.
>
I dislike this condition; it discourages people using our fragile justice
system even further. Making a false accusation should be fine, because
often it's not clear whether a violation was actually a violation in
advance.

> * In the last Agoran month, e has not broken any of eir pledges.
>
The pledge rule requires pragmatically declaring that the pledge is broken,
by calling it in. It would significantly ease the burden on the
recordkeeper to switch to this, since they would only have to read through
for called-in pledges, rather than for all violations of pledges.

>
> If, at any time, any player has 6 or more Badges of Honor, and e has
> not won via this rule previously, e can win the game by announcement.
>
This should destroy all eir Badges of Honor. I'd actually prefer it reset
all of them, but because they're awarded subjectively, that may not be a
great way to do it.

> }
>
> I thought this would be a nice, simple way to reward players who are
> "obedient" without being too overpowered. I'm sure it has flaws though, so
> that's why I'm posting it as a prototype first.
>
I like the concept in general, but have a few concerns. Another option
would be, rather than making this a separate system, tying it into Ribbons
and making it a Ribbon award. This has significant benefits and drawbacks.
One of the bigger reservations here is that this encourages a player to do
very little. For instance, a player who does nothing but vote will be
eligible every month, since they don't set themselves up for breaking one
of the rules. An officer in a complex office is likely to make mistakes,
and it's easy to issue em green cards as a result.

> Also, there's a few things I'm not really sure I'm completely happy with.
> First thing: I'm not exactly sure how to word what a Badge of Honor *is*.
> I think I did it right, but I'm not sure.
>
I'm not either, at this point...

> Second thing: I don't really know what office should keep track of and
> award these. My initial thought was the Referee, since e already keeps
> track of cards and such.
>
This is actually a fiarly intensive duty, since it requires looking through
an entire month's worth of mail to find actions (recordkeeping decisions is
bad enough, since you have to trawl through votes and people aren't always
kind enough to vote in reply to the original message starting the decision.
And that's only one week long). A better way, perhaps, would be to require
to explicitly declare themselves eligible within the first week of the
month, subject this to some form of challenge, and then have the award be
made in the second or third week. This would also get around the platonism
problem: if someone declares themselves eligible and nobody else
double-checks them, then they get their badge, oops.

> Third thing: I don't really know how the whole Karma system works, since
> it's quite new. Should I even bother including it?
>
Karma is fairly subjective. I think there's pros to including it
(encourages "good behaviour" without necessarily aligning that to the
rules) and cons (players can gang up to deny another player access to Honor
Badges by ensuring eir Karma is negative).

> Last thing: Is it necessary to include "In the last Agoran month, e has
> not broken any of eir pledges"? I think you can be issued a card for
> breaking a pledge, right?
>
Responded to this above.

-Alexis