DIS: Class-N
Would I be right in saying that the class of a crime no longer has any effect on the ninny (i.e. that they no longer receive a worse punishment for a greater class of crime)? -- Charles Walker
DIS: Class N crime
Wow - The rulesset is a bit of a mess, we should remove instances of Class N crimes as they don't mean anything.
Re: DIS: Class-N
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Charles Walker wrote: > Would I be right in saying that the class of a crime no longer has any > effect on the ninny (i.e. that they no longer receive a worse punishment for > a greater class of crime)? The judge might take the class of the crime into account when assigning punishment. There's no case law yet, primarily because until today NoVs required paying a fee and we had no currency and the rule allowing 0 fee actions to be done by announcement was repealed.
Re: DIS: Class-N
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Charles Walker wrote: > Would I be right in saying that the class of a crime no longer has any effect > on the ninny (i.e. that they no longer receive a worse punishment for a > greater class of crime)? They could be seen as Guideline numbers for Fine or Time Out. As such, I wouldn't scrap them as it took time to adjust them relative to each other, all we need to establish is the baseline punishment for the class-1.
Re: DIS: Class N crime
On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 22:02 +, Quazie wrote: > Wow - The rulesset is a bit of a mess, we should remove instances of > Class N crimes as they don't mean anything. CFJs in the past, after the undefinition of "class N crime", have found that specifying something as a crime makes it illegal, and higher classes should encourage higher punishments. In other words, pretty much what it meant back when it was defined, just less precise. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Class N crime
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 22:02 +, Quazie wrote: >> Wow - The rulesset is a bit of a mess, we should remove instances of >> Class N crimes as they don't mean anything. > > CFJs in the past, after the undefinition of "class N crime", have found > that specifying something as a crime makes it illegal, and higher > classes should encourage higher punishments. In other words, pretty > much what it meant back when it was defined, just less precise. I agree. I also note that keeping those definitions will make it easier to bring back a criminal judicial system, which we're planing to do soon anyway. -Aris
Re: DIS: Class N crime
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 22:02 +, Quazie wrote: > > Wow - The rulesset is a bit of a mess, we should remove instances of > > Class N crimes as they don't mean anything. > > CFJs in the past, after the undefinition of "class N crime", have found > that specifying something as a crime makes it illegal, and higher > classes should encourage higher punishments. In other words, pretty > much what it meant back when it was defined, just less precise. Just for reference, it was originally calibrated such that, if something was just ILLEGAL, it was by default a Class P crime where P was the power of the Rule. Adding the explicit Class was if you wanted to make something more (or less) serious than the power of the rule implied.
DIS: "Class-N Crime" or "Class N Crime"
Just to be stylistically consistent, which one should I prefer? The Rules use both, although "Class N" is more common than "Class-N". -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: "Class-N Crime" or "Class N Crime"
This would be a good candidate for a cleanup. I think the dash is more correct as its an adjectival phrase as it were? On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:51 AM Jason Cobb wrote: > Just to be stylistically consistent, which one should I prefer? The > Rules use both, although "Class N" is more common than "Class-N". > > -- > Jason Cobb > > -- >From R. Lee
