>I disagree because of the fact that this is a game. While we have a fair >notion of ethics/justice here, principled voting is hindered by the generally >feeling on one side of "it's just a game and what e did is no big deal and >was kinda cool why should I bother to vote to punish" and on the other side >with people who might want to punish for deeper gameplay motives.
That's absolutely true: and that's why I tried to call in ATMunn's pledge. It was, textually, broken. We should just call in those pledges. The problem is eventually punishment. Punishment is always going to be "oh it's just a game e's cool" or "I really hate this guy". It's hard to make a consistent system. But you're right, facts are facts are facts, and should ideally be decided by a judge. It's punishment that's hard to do, and that should be more standardized and more democratized (in come my long-promised sentencing guidelines rip) On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > > Right now our pledge system is based on bills of attainder (or more > > > correctly bills of pains and penalties), rather than justice. > > > > A further note: seperation of powers is a terrible, terrible, terrible > idea > > in a system in which the legislative power is exercised by everybody and > > the judicial power is exercised by everybody. Bills of attainder are a > Good > > Thing in our context. > > I disagree because of the fact that this is a game. While we have a fair > notion of ethics/justice here, principled voting is hindered by the > generally > feeling on one side of "it's just a game and what e did is no big deal and > was kinda cool why should I bother to vote to punish" and on the other side > with people who might want to punish for deeper gameplay motives. > > I think the best system is staged: (1) factual determination is by a > single > announcement (one person alleging that the pledge was broken), which the > "defendant" can choose to just accept, followed (if contested) by (2) a > single judge who can hopefully just sort out the less clear facts of the > case, followed only then by (3) appeals/moot by voting, only as a third > stage. > > This isn't a "separation of powers" thing so much as a "what helps the > situation be resolved as painlessly as possible so we can get on with > the game". > > I mean, in the current situation: I just don't care. I don't really care > enough about this particular pledge to form an opinion, but I feel > pressured > to. If you accept it I'd rather just get on with a single pronouncement, > if you don't I'll only have to think about it if it's my turn to judge. > And in situations I *do* care about, I'd get annoyed if no one else cared > enough to vote, but an assigned judge would be assigned to care. > > -G. > > > > > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
