On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:38 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 2:32 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:24 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 6/4/2020 9:37 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:09 PM Rebecca wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 2:00 AM Kerim Aydinwrote: > > > >>> I think having the option of a 0 being a regular thing is just > fine, > > > given > > > >> that the alternative is possibly taking wins away from people when > > > certain > > > >> officers get pointed at for missing a report, other officers don't > get > > > >> pointed at for the same stuff, et cetera. > > > > > > > > We make those things crimes for a reason. There are processes to deal > > > > with it and there are ways to avoid it; if people want to win, they > > > > should do it by following the rules. > > > > > > One single thing in this is that the majority of our > > > platonically-committed crimes is officer report lateness. > (specifically > > > thinking of action-free reports, not actions like resolving decisions). > > > Officering is voluntary and can be a bit thankless, and I think there's > > > general acknowledgement that missing weeks here and there shouldn't be > > > punished (or you might lose all your volunteers). > > > > > > But that penalty is no different in rules text than other breakages, > which > > > leads to a weird thing, where we've said that some crimes shouldn't be > > > punished much, compared to others, but we haven't written that down. > So > > > of course, when someone says "why is my lying being penalized more than > > > the missed reports, it's treated the same way in the rules" we can't > point > > > to anything concrete reason and punishment becomes arbitrary. > > > > > > SO I think if we formally recognize our leniency in reporting, then we > can > > > be a bit more comfortable strictly penalizing everything else? > > > > > > In a stint of temporary refereeing last year, I tried stating a policy > > > that "I'd never point a finger for one late report, but I will always > do > > > so for 2+ in a row" and that seemed to work well (and led to more > > > consistent punishment for habitually 2-week late people). Just a > thought > > > as a starting point? > > > > > > I'm for this general idea, I think. We shouldn't have rules we're not > going > > to enforce, and that means that if we routinely fail to enforce it, we > have > > the wrong rule. > > > > Two points here: first, I'd make this apply as part of the definition of > > weekly and monthly duties. > > > > Second, I'm not sure what the right standard is. Our current standard > > appears to be "we won't point a finger unless you're late by a week/a > full > > reporting period". (I don't know which it is, right off-hand; most > reports > > are weekly.) This may sound ridiculously lenient, but it appears to work > > surprisingly in practice? > > > > -Aris > > What about the following phrasing as a stepping stone while we work on a > full standard?: > Significant, repeated, negligent, or intentional failure of a > person to perform any duty required of em within the allotted > time is the Class 2 Crime of Tardiness. > I don't think that helps; that isn't the part that imposes the SHALLs, and something doesn't have to be a crime to be illegal. "Negligent" is too vague; arguably all lateness is either negligent or intentional. I also think that waiting until we have a precise definition, if we're going for one of those, would likely be a better idea. -Aris
