Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Referee) Two fingers pointed, cuddlybanana, Murphy
On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:52 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 2/10/2022 9:23 PM, Aspen via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 8:24 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business > > wrote: > >> I point a finger at Murphy for failure to judge CFJ 3940 in a timely > >> fashion, > >> in violation of Rule 591. > >> I note that this offense is minor (about two hours late) and likely > >> forgivable. > >> I also note that Murphy attempted to award emself blue glitter for their > >> judgement, > >> which failed because of this violation. > >> (This is how I intend to handle all violations except for extreme > >> circumstances. > >> Remember that a judge can file a motion to extend their case by > >> announcement.) > > > > > > I wish to register my strong personal disapproval for this action. I'm > > generally opposed to aggressive enforcement of deadlines to begin > > with. I am all the more opposed to enforcement against tardiness that > > has already been rectified. If no one noticed at the time, then I do > > not believe that it makes any sense to impose a penalty after the > > fact. > > I first instinctively agreed with Aspen, but on further reflection I'd > like to try being strict about rules breaches, including even minor tardiness. > > A few times in the past few years, I've come up with an scheme/idea, but > it depends on officers being on time (getting a proposal adopted before > the end of the month, posting a tournament update, or something). The > officer is late. I lose my scheme and any time investment. Overall it's > less fun for everyone because it was interesting gameplay. But the > officer is very sorry. And I (and we collectively) truly do understand, > Agora isn't anyone's #1 priority, and I'm late often too. It happens. No > biggie. > > But still, I've lost my invested effort due to the breach. Since our > current culture treats a finger-point as a "true" rebuke, I'd feel bad for > pointing or not accepting an officer's informal apology. So I don't > penalize them, but I feel annoyed. As a result, I might get a bit > passive-aggressive. Maybe snipe at something e says or vote against eir > unrelated proposal, whatever. It's petty and the lateness is truly nbd - > but the feeling's there for a few days and need to watch myself, or step > away from the game for a little. Not fun. And I'm less likely to try the > next scheme (which is the point of the game after all). > > I would VERY MUCH RATHER just be able to say "no worries, it happens, but > here's a Blot - that's not a rebuke, that's just a technical > nearly-automatic penalty the game applies, no one has to feel bad about > it." Then we can move on. I don't think I have an argument against your main point here. My gut reaction is to disagree with it, but that isn't an argument. > Any forgiveness can/should be dealt with on the sentencing side - we've > got mechanisms for forgiveness, reduction in penalties, or just asking for > a BBG. And if that's still to onerous, the obvious approach is to change > the rules - reduce penalties for weekly reports, make the first missed > officer's duty in a quarter a Warning, or any of a dozen other things. If we go this route, I think we should ease penalties fairly aggressively. > Other side effects of our current policy: > > - Challenging for new players. It's written in the rules that fingers are > to be pointed at breaches, and we even *reward* for doing so. Then the > first time a newb points a finger, thinking to pick up a JC (a great way > for a new player to gain when auctions are out of reach), we say "we don't > do that around here - goodfaithhonor and all that". They then need to > navigate a hidden, against-the-text-of-the-rules social pressure while > older players are comfortable knowing which fingers they can and can't > safely point, with the difference being relatively-arbitrary social > pressure. Also not fun. I agree that our current system is objectively terrible in this regard. I've never been a huge fan of the "rewards for pointing fingers" thing. I think it sends a message that's out of alignment with the way that I was hoping we'd approach this. There are ways of fixing that dissonance, including removing the reward, setting guidelines for when to point a finger, or penalty easing (even in the absence of harsher enforcement). I agree something needs to be change, but there are options for what to change. > - The economy. We've taken a general strong stand against pending > proposals for free, to support the pendant economy. Following that logic, > why would we depress/downright destroy the BBG economy? *continues to think that "it makes the economy work" is a bad reason to make things more difficult* -Aspen
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Referee) Two fingers pointed, cuddlybanana, Murphy
On 2/10/2022 9:23 PM, Aspen via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 8:24 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business > wrote: >> I point a finger at Murphy for failure to judge CFJ 3940 in a timely >> fashion, >> in violation of Rule 591. >> I note that this offense is minor (about two hours late) and likely >> forgivable. >> I also note that Murphy attempted to award emself blue glitter for their >> judgement, >> which failed because of this violation. >> (This is how I intend to handle all violations except for extreme >> circumstances. >> Remember that a judge can file a motion to extend their case by >> announcement.) > > > I wish to register my strong personal disapproval for this action. I'm > generally opposed to aggressive enforcement of deadlines to begin > with. I am all the more opposed to enforcement against tardiness that > has already been rectified. If no one noticed at the time, then I do > not believe that it makes any sense to impose a penalty after the > fact. I first instinctively agreed with Aspen, but on further reflection I'd like to try being strict about rules breaches, including even minor tardiness. A few times in the past few years, I've come up with an scheme/idea, but it depends on officers being on time (getting a proposal adopted before the end of the month, posting a tournament update, or something). The officer is late. I lose my scheme and any time investment. Overall it's less fun for everyone because it was interesting gameplay. But the officer is very sorry. And I (and we collectively) truly do understand, Agora isn't anyone's #1 priority, and I'm late often too. It happens. No biggie. But still, I've lost my invested effort due to the breach. Since our current culture treats a finger-point as a "true" rebuke, I'd feel bad for pointing or not accepting an officer's informal apology. So I don't penalize them, but I feel annoyed. As a result, I might get a bit passive-aggressive. Maybe snipe at something e says or vote against eir unrelated proposal, whatever. It's petty and the lateness is truly nbd - but the feeling's there for a few days and need to watch myself, or step away from the game for a little. Not fun. And I'm less likely to try the next scheme (which is the point of the game after all). I would VERY MUCH RATHER just be able to say "no worries, it happens, but here's a Blot - that's not a rebuke, that's just a technical nearly-automatic penalty the game applies, no one has to feel bad about it." Then we can move on. Any forgiveness can/should be dealt with on the sentencing side - we've got mechanisms for forgiveness, reduction in penalties, or just asking for a BBG. And if that's still to onerous, the obvious approach is to change the rules - reduce penalties for weekly reports, make the first missed officer's duty in a quarter a Warning, or any of a dozen other things. Other side effects of our current policy: - Challenging for new players. It's written in the rules that fingers are to be pointed at breaches, and we even *reward* for doing so. Then the first time a newb points a finger, thinking to pick up a JC (a great way for a new player to gain when auctions are out of reach), we say "we don't do that around here - goodfaithhonor and all that". They then need to navigate a hidden, against-the-text-of-the-rules social pressure while older players are comfortable knowing which fingers they can and can't safely point, with the difference being relatively-arbitrary social pressure. Also not fun. - The economy. We've taken a general strong stand against pending proposals for free, to support the pendant economy. Following that logic, why would we depress/downright destroy the BBG economy? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Referee) Two fingers pointed, cuddlybanana, Murphy
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 9:24 PM Aspen via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 8:24 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business > wrote: > > I point a finger at Murphy for failure to judge CFJ 3940 in a timely > > fashion, > > in violation of Rule 591. > > I note that this offense is minor (about two hours late) and likely > > forgivable. > > I also note that Murphy attempted to award emself blue glitter for their > > judgement, > > which failed because of this violation. > > (This is how I intend to handle all violations except for extreme > > circumstances. > > Remember that a judge can file a motion to extend their case by > > announcement.) > > > I wish to register my strong personal disapproval for this action. I'm > generally opposed to aggressive enforcement of deadlines to begin > with. I am all the more opposed to enforcement against tardiness that > has already been rectified. If no one noticed at the time, then I do > not believe that it makes any sense to impose a penalty after the > fact. > -Aspen > I apologize. While I do feel strongly about this issue, that was unnecessarily strongly worded. I'll mull over my response to this and the issues involved, and try to respond when I've cooled off if I think I have something worthwhile to say. -Aspen
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Referee) Two fingers pointed, cuddlybanana, Murphy
On Thu, 2022-02-10 at 23:54 -0600, Mark Wieland via agora-discussion wrote: > I had noticed this particular CFJ was taking longer than the others, > but you're right that nobody noticed this infraction at the time. As > Arbitor, I probably should have been paying more attention and > notified Murphy ahead of time. But disregard for the fact it was late > at all is the issue here, especially since Murphy tried to award > emself Blue Glitter wrongly. > > CFJ's can meaningfully affect what players want to do, so their > timely judgement is important. A penalty is deserved as the full week > was allowed to pass without a judgement or extension, when players > may have been anticipating the judgement sooner. No one may have > noticed the crime, but it was committed And I also had to verify it > was committed to perform my duties correctly. This shouldn't be an > issue for such a short CFJ. (Though it may have additional extensive > research I'm not aware of.) I'm enforcing it more strictly to > hopefully facilitate more efficient gameplay, and at least attention > to the deadlines. > > Anyways I don't for sure know what I'm doing so if someone could > convince me otherwise, feel free to. IMO it's proper to point out the violation – if it's deemed inconsequential, the correct reaction is to reduce the punishment (possibly to zero), rather than ignoring the violation altogether. Among other things, missed deadlines being pointed out promptly helps to reduce the chance that the same deadline gets missed many times in a row, at which point it does start to become a problem. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Referee) Two fingers pointed, cuddlybanana, Murphy
I had noticed this particular CFJ was taking longer than the others, but you're right that nobody noticed this infraction at the time. As Arbitor, I probably should have been paying more attention and notified Murphy ahead of time. But disregard for the fact it was late at all is the issue here, especially since Murphy tried to award emself Blue Glitter wrongly. CFJ's can meaningfully affect what players want to do, so their timely judgement is important. A penalty is deserved as the full week was allowed to pass without a judgement or extension, when players may have been anticipating the judgement sooner. No one may have noticed the crime, but it was committed. And I also had to verify it was committed to perform my duties correctly. This shouldn't be an issue for such a short CFJ. (Though it may have additional extensive research I'm not aware of.) I'm enforcing it more strictly to hopefully facilitate more efficient gameplay, and at least attention to the deadlines. Anyways I don't for sure know what I'm doing so if someone could convince me otherwise, feel free to. -- secretsnail > I wish to register my strong personal disapproval for this action. I'm > generally opposed to aggressive enforcement of deadlines to begin > with. I am all the more opposed to enforcement against tardiness that > has already been rectified. If no one noticed at the time, then I do > not believe that it makes any sense to impose a penalty after the > fact. > > -Aspen
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Referee) Two fingers pointed, cuddlybanana, Murphy
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 8:24 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > I point a finger at Murphy for failure to judge CFJ 3940 in a timely > fashion, > in violation of Rule 591. > I note that this offense is minor (about two hours late) and likely > forgivable. > I also note that Murphy attempted to award emself blue glitter for their > judgement, > which failed because of this violation. > (This is how I intend to handle all violations except for extreme > circumstances. > Remember that a judge can file a motion to extend their case by > announcement.) I wish to register my strong personal disapproval for this action. I'm generally opposed to aggressive enforcement of deadlines to begin with. I am all the more opposed to enforcement against tardiness that has already been rectified. If no one noticed at the time, then I do not believe that it makes any sense to impose a penalty after the fact. -Aspen
