On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 16:38, Rebecca via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:34 AM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:27 AM James Cook via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 16:14, Rebecca via agora-discussion > >> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> > 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 > >> > >> There are a couple of differences in my mind. > >> > >> First, I never really agreed to my local laws. > >> > >> Second, at least for some games, the rules are the whole point. I > >> wouldn't find a game of chess very fun if my opponent were trying to > >> move pieces while I wasn't looking. It's not what I signed up for. I > >> feel this way about Agora too. Admittedly I feel it less strongly in > >> Agora than in chess, maybe because Agora's rules are much more vague > >> and complicated. Still, if this is a game, it seems like the world > >> "rules" should be used for the ground rules, i.e. the basic underlying > >> structure people are expected to follow. > >> > >> - Falsifian > >> > > Well chess is a game in which there is no distinctions between CANs and > > SHALLs, except I suppose in tournament play with regards to the chess > > clock. In Agora, I find the CANs paramount and the SHALLs not particularly > > important, as a general rule. > > -- > > From R. Lee > > > If someone attempted to sneak a piece behind the back of another, that > person would no longer be playing chess, because the rules of chess have no > concept of such a thing, and therefore don't punish it in a chess way.
Your interpretation of CAN vs SHALL is appealing to me, but I'm hung up on the words "violates the rule" in R2152. - Falsifian
