On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > Distributability is a mess and has significantly removed the > attractiveness of submitting proposals. It is an oversolution to the > problem of bad proposals getting into the system.
Seems to be working fine to me. Just because things used to be Free doesn't mean they should be. Looking at the latest Conductor's report you have 32 rests; why such a miser if you think good proposals aren't being distributed? Long proposal distributions previously significantly removed the attractiveness of voting on proposals, which is more important - truly dangerous things can get through that way. > Judges are, to some extent, encouraged to provide bad judgments. In > particular, judges in theory should attempt to get their case REMANDed > so that they can judge again and earn more salary (the current Cards > proto doesn't solve this). Even barring that, judges are still not at > all encouraged to provide reasoning for their judgments (ehird and > Rodlen in particular seem to be major culprits here). Hence REASSIGN. I'm much more inclined to jump straight to reassign for merely token efforts, especially for those with histories of token efforts. It will happen more. I think a bigger issue is the Callers, actually; standards of evidence and case preparation are way down from what they used to be; the basic "DISMISS/UNDETERMINED - do your homework and try again" used to be a better block but is seldom enough used. > The punishments for breaking rules are not only disproportionate to the > penalties, but also completely out of proportion in general. Strongly agreed. Making "by default punishment=power" was a a shortcut that has led to much misery. > I would like to work to unify the new Cards proposal with penalties by > adding penal cards which can be played on players to restrict their > actions. These cards could be dealt normally and played on players as > weapons, or else awarded by rules as penalties. Further to this, we > could also make special reward cards that act similarly - each win > condition could grant the Champion a special card effect. These card > effects would last for a certain time (one week, maybe), and then would > cease to occur. Not too bad of an expansion set idea; but not all crimes should be this light. Many of the crimes that are defined with high penalties have significant effects where punishments should last a while. Since this is modular I won't tackle it in the first cards proposal I submit. > I think that penalties for proposals should be awarded based on getting > heavyhanded rejection of proposals (VI < 0.5), with one "free" proposal > each week to avoid stifling players like distributability does. This > also allows higher-clout players a higher degree of safety. I'll try to balance card supply to near 1 proposal/week (though that may trade off with other actions). Not sure what you mean by degree of safety. I don't agree with direct penalties for proposal rejection; change that to "lack of award for adoption" and I'd agree. > Bad judges > should be penalizable at the option of the appeals panel. I don't know > what the penalties should be, as this is a very invasive change, but I > think it needs to be done. When the Judicial Reforms were enacted in 2007, it became a breach of the judgement rule to assign an inappropriate judgement. Many, many criminal cases were called when someone didn't agree with a judgement, whether the judge put lots of work into it (but was misguided) or simply blew it off. Then a set of precedents said "freedom from coercion or fear is critical for judges. Judges should only be guilty of inappropriateness if they were shown to have been directly bribed or performed other malfeasance". Then there was a conscious decision to remove penalties from the rules (except loss of salary). So having tried that one before, I think the right answer is just to convince appeals courts to be more ready to REASSIGN instead of REMAND in lazy cases; loss of salary plus loss of judicial rank would do fine if that happened; it's possible now and merely a cultural issue. -G.
