On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:23 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
<agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 5/21/2020 8:59 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On 5/21/20 6:59 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
> > wrote:
> >> ----
> >> For this
> >> decision, the vote collector is the Judge, the options are GUILTY,
> >> NOT GUILTY, REJECT, and PRESENT, and the voting method is AI-
> >> majority with AI=1.5.
> >
> > For an AI decision, the only options are FOR and AGAINST (see R2528).
> >
>
> Yeah, can't have all options have a 1.5 threshold. You want GUILTY to be
> the equivalent of ADOPTED. How about just say an AI-1.5 decision with
> standard options, where an ADOPTED would result in the outcomes associated
> with GUILTY?
How does this text work as a solution? By dividing the decisions, it
maintains the full array of outcomes.
----
Title: High Crimes and Treason
AI: 1.7
Author: P.S.S.
Coauthors:
Amend Rule 2478 by appending the following text to the end of the rule:
A high crime is any crime specified as being class 4 or greater.
The Referee CANNOT levy the Cold Hand of Justice to punish a high
crime, notwithstanding Rule 2478.
Amend Rule 2478 by amending the list to read in full:
- Imposing the Cold Hand of Justice on the perp for the cited rule
violation, as described elsewhere;
- Issuing an Indictment against the perp for the cited rule
violation, as described elsewhere; or
- if e believes that no rules violation occurred or that it would
be ILLEGAL or INEFFECTIVE to levy a fine for it, announcing the
Finger Pointing to be Shenanigans.
Create a new AI-1.7 rule, "Indictment", with the following text:
When the rules authorize an investigator to issue an Indictment
for a violation, e CAN do so by announcement, specifying a fine of
blots to be issued and the perpetrator and making an argument for
the conviction of the accused.
When an investigator has issued an Indictment, the perpetrator
CAN state a defence. Within 10 days but no less than 4 days after
the indictment has been issued, the judge SHALL initiate two Agoran
Decisions, one to determine whether to convict the perpetrator and
one to determine whether to accept the indictment. For these
decision, the vote collector is the Judge and the voting method is
AI-majority with AI=1.5. When initiating the decisions, the Judge
SHALL, in the same message, publish the full texts of the
Indictment and the defence. If both decisions are resolved as ADOPTED,
the investigator CAN and SHALL impose the fine stated in the
indictment. If the decision to convict is resolved as ADOPTED but the
decision to accept is resolved as REJECTED, the investigator CAN issue
a new Indictment. If the decision to convict is resolved as REJECTED,
a fine SHALL NOT be imposed for the crime stated in the indictment.
If the Referee is the investigator and the Arbitor is not the
perpetrator, the Arbitor is the Judge. If the Arbitor is the
Investigator or the perpetrator, the Speaker is the Judge.
----
>
> Also realize, if you're going the Decision route, there's nothing
> currently stopping punishment proposals, and even if this rule is
> implemented there's nothing stopping someone from changing the AI
> threshold by doing this: "I submit the following proposal, AI-[whatever I
> like]: Whereas PSS is guilty of Treason, when this proposal takes effect
> 10 Blots are created in eir possession".
>
This was my initial thought, but I want to maintain the duty to
resolve and investigate and there was opposition to involving
proposals in official duties.
