Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Less Strict Faking

[Alex Smith]

On Sat, 2017-07-22 at 15:39 +, Quazie wrote:
> While you're at it - bankruptcy sucks - being unable to work at all
> with organizations for long periods of time is a pretty intense
> punishment.

Hasn't your Lockout ended already? I thought it did, fairly recently.
So in this case, the Lockout basically didn't do anything, as there
hasn't been any real Organization-based gameplay in all that time.

Bankruptcy is meant to suck more than the alternative, though (actually
paying your dues to Organizations you owe Expenditure to, so that they
allow you to leave). If going bankrupt was at all easy, it could easily
leave Organizations insolvent, and give them pretty much no teeth
(because an Organization can't create a SHALL requirement; all it can
do is allow people to exert penalties on members who do something
unwanted).

That said, perhaps it's impossible to fight the "all roads lead to
contracts" nature of Agora. My attempts to create economic systems
never seem to go as intended.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Less Strict Faking

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I would recommend lowering it to one month and see how that goes.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jul 22, 2017, at 2:44 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> It's currently at 90 days (Rule 2457).
> 
> -Aris
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> I’d be in favour of reducing it from a month to a week or two. I’m
>> especially sympathetic to your case, as your original action that lead to
>> your bankruptcy could easily have been entirely ineffective, and therefore
>> harmless.
>> 
>> -o
>> 
>> On Jul 22, 2017, at 11:39 AM, Quazie  wrote:
>> 
>> While you're at it - bankruptcy sucks - being unable to work at all with
>> organizations for long periods of time is a pretty intense punishment.
>> 
>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 14:58 Nic Evans  wrote:
>>> 
>>> If I can, I withdraw the proposal "Less Strict Faking". Thank you and
>>> sorry to anyone who lost shinies pending it. (Especially since I
>>> realized I had 5 shinies after I asked people to pend it.)
>>> 
>>> I'm currently rethinking not only this but the entire criminal justice
>>> proposal. I do believe we need robust systems to deal with disruption,
>>> that explicit reprimand is a useful tool, and that ameliorative
>>> intervention (like tort law) is productive. But I question the
>>> effectiveness of the current Card system, and I worry about the
>>> direction of my own proposal; a complex criminal system surely wouldn't
>>> look welcoming to newcomers, and might cause as much grief as it intends
>>> to solve. Maybe I've taken a dark turn there.
>>> 
>>> I think that Justice, in general, can use three tools: Punishment,
>>> Rehabilitation, and Remedy. I think the first is the easiest to jump to
>>> but also the least useful. Exclusionary punishment (limiting voting
>>> power, CFJs, and even banishment) can prevent specific attacks but does
>>> little to decrease the malice of an aggravated person and frequently
>>> alienates the simply belligerent.
>>> 
>>> Rehabilitation already exists in the current system, and I think all of
>>> us have been pleasantly surprised at its success: Apologies. Maybe a
>>> future criminal system should focus more closely on this. Maybe ALL
>>> punishments should be reducable with Rehabilitory steps.
>>> 
>>> Remedy is essentially all of tort law, and doesn't currently exist. If
>>> we continue with pledges, orgs, and assets we definitely need it. But
>>> like Punishment, it does little to enlighten or improve the mood of the
>>> offender, and should be used when it helps to provide an overall sense
>>> of fairness to the community.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 07/13/17 15:37, Nic Evans wrote:
 I submit the following proposal:
 
 Title: Less Strict Faking
 AI: 1
 Author: nichdel
 Co-authors:
 
 Amend R2471 (No Faking) to read:
 
 A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e does not believe
 to be possible so as to deceive others.
 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Less Strict Faking

[Aris Merchant]

It's currently at 90 days (Rule 2457).

-Aris


On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> I’d be in favour of reducing it from a month to a week or two. I’m
> especially sympathetic to your case, as your original action that lead to
> your bankruptcy could easily have been entirely ineffective, and therefore
> harmless.
>
> -o
>
> On Jul 22, 2017, at 11:39 AM, Quazie  wrote:
>
> While you're at it - bankruptcy sucks - being unable to work at all with
> organizations for long periods of time is a pretty intense punishment.
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 14:58 Nic Evans  wrote:
>>
>> If I can, I withdraw the proposal "Less Strict Faking". Thank you and
>> sorry to anyone who lost shinies pending it. (Especially since I
>> realized I had 5 shinies after I asked people to pend it.)
>>
>> I'm currently rethinking not only this but the entire criminal justice
>> proposal. I do believe we need robust systems to deal with disruption,
>> that explicit reprimand is a useful tool, and that ameliorative
>> intervention (like tort law) is productive. But I question the
>> effectiveness of the current Card system, and I worry about the
>> direction of my own proposal; a complex criminal system surely wouldn't
>> look welcoming to newcomers, and might cause as much grief as it intends
>> to solve. Maybe I've taken a dark turn there.
>>
>> I think that Justice, in general, can use three tools: Punishment,
>> Rehabilitation, and Remedy. I think the first is the easiest to jump to
>> but also the least useful. Exclusionary punishment (limiting voting
>> power, CFJs, and even banishment) can prevent specific attacks but does
>> little to decrease the malice of an aggravated person and frequently
>> alienates the simply belligerent.
>>
>> Rehabilitation already exists in the current system, and I think all of
>> us have been pleasantly surprised at its success: Apologies. Maybe a
>> future criminal system should focus more closely on this. Maybe ALL
>> punishments should be reducable with Rehabilitory steps.
>>
>> Remedy is essentially all of tort law, and doesn't currently exist. If
>> we continue with pledges, orgs, and assets we definitely need it. But
>> like Punishment, it does little to enlighten or improve the mood of the
>> offender, and should be used when it helps to provide an overall sense
>> of fairness to the community.
>>
>>
>> On 07/13/17 15:37, Nic Evans wrote:
>> > I submit the following proposal:
>> >
>> > Title: Less Strict Faking
>> > AI: 1
>> > Author: nichdel
>> > Co-authors:
>> >
>> > Amend R2471 (No Faking) to read:
>> >
>> > A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e does not believe
>> > to be possible so as to deceive others.
>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Less Strict Faking

[Owen Jacobson]

I’d be in favour of reducing it from a month to a week or two. I’m especially 
sympathetic to your case, as your original action that lead to your bankruptcy 
could easily have been entirely ineffective, and therefore harmless.

-o

> On Jul 22, 2017, at 11:39 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> While you're at it - bankruptcy sucks - being unable to work at all with 
> organizations for long periods of time is a pretty intense punishment.
> 
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 14:58 Nic Evans  > wrote:
> If I can, I withdraw the proposal "Less Strict Faking". Thank you and
> sorry to anyone who lost shinies pending it. (Especially since I
> realized I had 5 shinies after I asked people to pend it.)
> 
> I'm currently rethinking not only this but the entire criminal justice
> proposal. I do believe we need robust systems to deal with disruption,
> that explicit reprimand is a useful tool, and that ameliorative
> intervention (like tort law) is productive. But I question the
> effectiveness of the current Card system, and I worry about the
> direction of my own proposal; a complex criminal system surely wouldn't
> look welcoming to newcomers, and might cause as much grief as it intends
> to solve. Maybe I've taken a dark turn there.
> 
> I think that Justice, in general, can use three tools: Punishment,
> Rehabilitation, and Remedy. I think the first is the easiest to jump to
> but also the least useful. Exclusionary punishment (limiting voting
> power, CFJs, and even banishment) can prevent specific attacks but does
> little to decrease the malice of an aggravated person and frequently
> alienates the simply belligerent.
> 
> Rehabilitation already exists in the current system, and I think all of
> us have been pleasantly surprised at its success: Apologies. Maybe a
> future criminal system should focus more closely on this. Maybe ALL
> punishments should be reducable with Rehabilitory steps.
> 
> Remedy is essentially all of tort law, and doesn't currently exist. If
> we continue with pledges, orgs, and assets we definitely need it. But
> like Punishment, it does little to enlighten or improve the mood of the
> offender, and should be used when it helps to provide an overall sense
> of fairness to the community.
> 
> 
> On 07/13/17 15:37, Nic Evans wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal:
> >
> > Title: Less Strict Faking
> > AI: 1
> > Author: nichdel
> > Co-authors:
> >
> > Amend R2471 (No Faking) to read:
> >
> > A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e does not believe
> > to be possible so as to deceive others.
> >
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Less Strict Faking

[Quazie]

While you're at it - bankruptcy sucks - being unable to work at all with
organizations for long periods of time is a pretty intense punishment.

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 14:58 Nic Evans  wrote:

> If I can, I withdraw the proposal "Less Strict Faking". Thank you and
> sorry to anyone who lost shinies pending it. (Especially since I
> realized I had 5 shinies after I asked people to pend it.)
>
> I'm currently rethinking not only this but the entire criminal justice
> proposal. I do believe we need robust systems to deal with disruption,
> that explicit reprimand is a useful tool, and that ameliorative
> intervention (like tort law) is productive. But I question the
> effectiveness of the current Card system, and I worry about the
> direction of my own proposal; a complex criminal system surely wouldn't
> look welcoming to newcomers, and might cause as much grief as it intends
> to solve. Maybe I've taken a dark turn there.
>
> I think that Justice, in general, can use three tools: Punishment,
> Rehabilitation, and Remedy. I think the first is the easiest to jump to
> but also the least useful. Exclusionary punishment (limiting voting
> power, CFJs, and even banishment) can prevent specific attacks but does
> little to decrease the malice of an aggravated person and frequently
> alienates the simply belligerent.
>
> Rehabilitation already exists in the current system, and I think all of
> us have been pleasantly surprised at its success: Apologies. Maybe a
> future criminal system should focus more closely on this. Maybe ALL
> punishments should be reducable with Rehabilitory steps.
>
> Remedy is essentially all of tort law, and doesn't currently exist. If
> we continue with pledges, orgs, and assets we definitely need it. But
> like Punishment, it does little to enlighten or improve the mood of the
> offender, and should be used when it helps to provide an overall sense
> of fairness to the community.
>
>
> On 07/13/17 15:37, Nic Evans wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal:
> >
> > Title: Less Strict Faking
> > AI: 1
> > Author: nichdel
> > Co-authors:
> >
> > Amend R2471 (No Faking) to read:
> >
> > A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e does not believe
> > to be possible so as to deceive others.
> >
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Kerim Aydin]

Sorry, yes, I think I misinterpreted something you did with the Organization as 
being a pledge.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2017, Josh T wrote:
> Re: Japanese pledge: Given that I don't recall having made a pledge in 
> Japanese, I haven't the foggiest what it might refer
> to. 
> Re: Japanese Organization: Yeah, no, that's what I expected of it. I have a 
> long philosophical experiment, I swear. 
> 
> 天火狐
> 
> On 20 July 2017 at 23:58, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
>   On Jul 20, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
>   > o, you seem to have accepted that a pledge in Japanese, of very 
> limited
>   > comprehension to me, and with limited enforceability due to 
> translation issues
>   > (even with the translator) is still some kind of publicly-made 
> pledge.  Why does
>   > this case differ to you?
> 
>   Can you point out where I did so? I’m having difficulty finding it. It 
> does sound like a thing I’d do, but I had
>   not fully understood the implications of CFJ 1460 until after your 
> Cygneus Cantus, so if it was prior to that, I
>   plead ignorance by default.
> 
>   -o
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Josh T]

Re: Japanese pledge: Given that I don't recall having made a pledge in
Japanese, I haven't the foggiest what it might refer to.

Re: Japanese Organization: Yeah, no, that's what I expected of it. I have a
long philosophical experiment, I swear.

天火狐

On 20 July 2017 at 23:58, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> On Jul 20, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
> > o, you seem to have accepted that a pledge in Japanese, of very limited
> > comprehension to me, and with limited enforceability due to translation
> issues
> > (even with the translator) is still some kind of publicly-made pledge.
> Why does
> > this case differ to you?
>
> Can you point out where I did so? I’m having difficulty finding it. It
> does sound like a thing I’d do, but I had not fully understood the
> implications of CFJ 1460 until after your Cygneus Cantus, so if it was
> prior to that, I plead ignorance by default.
>
> -o
>
>