On 6/6/2020 9:33 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >> E.g. "Certain actions are defined as infractions - these incur penalties >> but not rule violations per se. Certain actions are defined as crimes. >> You're breaking the rules if you do those. Really, don't do those." > > That would be nice. Is that how crimes and infractions were > distinguished in the past? > > - Falsifian >
No, I don't think we've ever been explicit about that. It was there implicitly, to a degree. The penalty structure was different (higher penalties for crimes), and the method of finding fault made the "crime" process more serious (you had to be convicted in court for a crime, but an infraction was a direct penalty that could be applied by announcement). And the Agoran custom was at the time was to shrug at infractions but always apply them (i.e. pretty much any late report would earn you a blot infraction, IIRC, so a greater fraction of players carried blot balances - side note that's what made rebellion work) but hesitate at crimes unless there was malice/strong intent. But there was nothing that explicitly said "infractions aren't really cheating but crimes are definitely cheating" or anything like that. -G.
