On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:11 AM Alex Smith via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 28 May 2020, 17:03:57 GMT+1, James Cook via > agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > In fact, it may be a good idea to have two separate tiers of crimes > anyway: > > > small infractions that earn you some blots, and serious ones that come > with a > > > punishment you can't pay off. I think that'd reconcile the ideas of > "justice as > > > a game mechanic" and "justice as a way to deal with bad faith > actors/actions." > > > > If some justice is intended to be a game mechanic, I'd prefer the > > crimes related to those to not be described as rule violations (SHALL > > NOT, etc). > > It doesn't really sound fun to me for the written rules of a game to > > deliberately not be an accurate description of the expected boundaries > > of gameplay. > > I fully agree with this. It's fine to have actions where "you're allowed > to do this > but there will be consequences", and it's fine to have illegal actions, > but please > don't mix the two. > > -- > ais523 > isn't law in real life exactly this though? there are plenty of things like littering that people often do (and attract relatively small consequences) that are just as illegal under law as, say, murder. -- >From R. Lee
