On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 03:24 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Amend Rule 2449, "Winning the Game", by appending > > "By definition, a person CANNOT win the game if e broke the rules to do > so, > or if another person broke the rules to help em win with eir advance > knowledge." > as a new paragraph at the end of the rule. > As with the other proto, I dislike making subjective platonic restrictions; this applies especially for wins. I'm definitely not opposed to making illegal wins invalid, but there should be a more robust mechanism to do so. > Amend Rule 2152, "Mother, May I?", by appending ", CRIME" after > "PROHIBITED". > > Create a new power 2.0 rule entitled "Conspiracy", with the following text: > > A person SHALL NOT aid, abet, counsel, command, or induce the violation > of the rules by another person; when e does so, e commits the Class-3 > Crime of > Conspiracy. > > [The Class-3 bit means it's generally fairly minor, and may become more > useful > when we reenact a more thorough criminal system.] > > If a person does not personally materially benefit from a rule > violation, e > does not commit Conspiracy by merely knowing about it or the potential > for it > to occur and not reporting it. A person never commits conspiracy if e is > the only one participating in the violation. > > [Credit to 18 U.S.C. ยง2 for some of that phrasing. Yes, I know I'm > conflating > aiding and abetting with conspiracy, but the difference is unimportant for > our > purposes.] > My only concern here is that the second paragraph implies that someone who is not involved and does materially benefit who stays silent is breaking the rules, but this is not included in the first paragraph. I think that the "If a person does not personally materially benefit" bit should be removed so that a player can clearly, say, benefit from the ratification of an incorrect report that e had no hand in making.
