On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:51 PM Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:

> The penalty card limits set out in rules 2478 (“Vigilante Justice”) and
> 2479 (“Official Justice”) appear to be designed to prevent two problems:
>
> * abuses of finger-pointing, such as pointing one’s finger at every
> player, or repeatedly pointing one’s finger at someone long past the point
> where the allegations have been settled, and
>
> * abuses of the office of Referee, such as issuing an inordinate number of
> Yellow or Red cards as part of an attempt to scam ballots.
>
> These are pro-active protections - they apply to prevent the actions,
> rather than to address actions that have happened - and I think that’s
> important. However, they’re structurally a bit shaky - the recent bug found
> in the Referee rules that forces that officer to card every finger-pointing
> and the rule requiring that the Referee receive a card for inappropriately
> issuing cards combined to exhaust some of the limits this week, leaving the
> office in a slightly odd state. With that in mind, I’d like to propose the
> following reforms to the office:
>
> * Remove the limits on finger-pointing entirely. Replace them with a rule
> along the lines that a player SHALL NOT point eir finger an excessive
> number of times, or similar, and leave the determination of what
> “excessive” is up to CFJs and the patience of the investigator.
>
> * Remove the limits on summary judgement. Continue to allow the Referee to
> issue cards immediately in response to finger-pointing, but remove the
> ability for the Referee to unilaterally issue cards: if the Referee is the
> finger-pointer, or if no finger has been pointed, then the Referee can only
> issue cards without objection.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -o
>

I generally concur. However, without objection is a mighty high standard to
meet. I think we can trust that someone will often object to being given a
card, and certain players have a habit of objecting to random things for no
apparent reason. That's at least two objections. Maybe with some amount of
support/ N agora consent would be better (support has the significant
advantage that there's no minimum time limit, so I might tend to go with
that).

-Aris

>
>

Reply via email to