Without objection is too easy to sidestep On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 12:00 AM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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 > >> >>
