On 6/4/2020 11:38 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 2:32 PM Aris Merchant wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:24 AM Kerim Aydin 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'd rather define it straight-up (shouldn't take too much discussion) without an interim step like that - given differences in our collective perceptions, I don't know that there would be reasonable consensus about what those terms mean. For example, I think monthly reports should be penalized if they're missed, every time. A month is plenty of time to produce a report, and the way the archives are structured it would be good to ensure that we every "month" page of the Official archives has at least one report. So right there, there's different standards for monthly and weekly around (say) the term "negligent". Also, if left up to courts, "negligence" may be different for (say) Karma that doesn't really affect much actual game decision making, versus the Treasuror's report where a missed couple of weeks means a lot of people are unsure of their holdings. Parsing that all out in CFJs defining those terms sounds like a mess. As a starting point, how about monthly stays as-is, but the weekly penalties are either (1) missing 2 in a row, or (2) missing 2 out of the last 4? The '2 out of 4' part is to avoid "missing 2 in a row" turning into "everyone just does it every other week". -G.
