On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:21 AM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On May 26, 2019, at 9:01 PM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 5:49 PM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> and, therefore, any attempt to impose a fine was retroactively INEFFECTIVE. > > > > ...wow, that's strange. Why the heck is rule 2531 designed to make > > the gamestate (whether fines are EFFECTIVE, and thus indirectly > > people's voting power) depend on so many "soft" factors? Including > > the legality of actions, whether someone "more likely than not" > > performed an action (according to whom?), and even whether or not a > > fine is "blatantly and obviously unsuited". > > I think it’s important for there to be some strict conditions for the > POSSIBILITY of the referee blotting someone, precisely because it > affects voting power. We wouldn’t want it to be POSSIBLE for the Referee > to ILLEGALLY issue 40 blots to each player and exile em or negate their > voting power, and create a dictatorship that way.
> It might be a good idea to amend the rule so that failing some > requirements make the fine IMPOSSIBLE, and failing other requirements > enable a player to remove the blots by some process (like through a > CFJ). I’m not sure which requirements should be in which category though. This has been a long-term structural question. We've always needed a "quick punishment" system for trivially-true crimes (e.g. late reports) and a more deliberative system to grind out justice. We have called these things like Infractions vs Crimes, or "plea bargain" vs "criminal trial". If something seems like a quick punishment but the defendant wants longer justice, the question of "what punishment status should be applied in the interim" is a tricky one. The "blot people out of the game" has in fact happened before. On the other hand, blots prevent winning. So if the defendant can delay a punishment by calling for a long trial, e might win in the mean time (I'm thinking of cases where the win conditions were independent of the alleged crime). So there's a balance to be struck. We once had a long and complicated process of Judicial Orders (punishment was applied via an order) but orders could be stayed, vacated by another judge, etc. Dueling order battles were fun! Sorta. But very very confusing, especially when we started ordering each other not to issue further orders. I think, in balance, I agree with D. Margaux that the "make it IMPOSSIBLE and adjust game understanding retroactively if a CFJ comes up" is a good way to go. It tips the balance away from being either too much favoring the defendant versus the prosecution and the expense of some overall game uncertainty - so far so minor. A second option might be a short delay - The Referee applies a punishment without Objection from the defendant, but the only method the defendant can use to Object is to demand trial (i.e. call a CFJ). The Trial would be required to apply the default punishment while the referee could offer a lesser sentence for not objecting. The main issue with this is it requires some follow-up from the referee for each offense. A third thing - specifically on the voting side - is to say that voting results can only be CoEd the result (ADOPTED vs REJECTED) and not differences in the vote count that don't affect the outcome (this is useful in many contexts, actually!)
