On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:20 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > On 6/4/2020 12:09 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> 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. > > > > I like the general idea, but how would 2 out of 4 prevent alternating > weeks? > > > > I meant "missing 2 out of 4" was a penalty not the minimum acceptable. So > if you miss week 1, and publish in week 2, you then can't miss either of > weeks 3 or 4. > > Or maybe that's too fiddly and every-other week is fine? > IMO that's too fiddly and every-other week is fine. We're not really penalizing it in the current regime, and things are working fine. -Aris > >
