DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo
Huh. You cannot officially require the referee to investigate a non-player
via noting.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024, 12:14 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I create the following proposal:
>
> ---
> Title: yes, yes, I got the memo
> Author: Gaelan
> AI: 1.7
>
> Amend rule 2478 (“Justice”) by replacing: {
> A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
> committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
> incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
> it has one).
> } with {
> A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
> committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
> incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
> it has one); but a player CANNOT note an infraction that has
> already been investigated.
> }
>
> [Currently, if an infraction is noted after it is investigated,
> the Investigator SHALL but CANNOT investigate it. This would be
> automatically forgiven by 2531, so it’s not an issue in practice,
> but let’s fix it properly.]
> ---
>
> Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo
> On Mar 25, 2024, at 8:53 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion > wrote: > > I suggest "un-noted" to prevent all instances of noting 1 infraction > multiple times. That doesn’t fix the original issue, as an infraction can be investigated without being noted. And I don’t really think duplicate notes are an issue, as investigating it discharges all the obligations at once. Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo
> On Mar 25, 2024, at 8:06 PM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> On 25/03/2024 19:13, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
>> Amend rule 2478 (“Justice”) by replacing: {
>> A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
>> committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
>> incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
>> it has one).
>> } with {
>> A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
>> committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
>> incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
>> it has one); but a player CANNOT note an infraction that has
>> already been investigated.
>> }
>
> Could this not more succinctly just be "...an unforgiven, uninvestigated
> infraction"? The rule is already quite long and hard to parse.
>
> -Kate
Possibly - I started there, but wasn’t confident “uninvestigated”
was usable without a definition, and defining it would just make
things worse.
Could certainly be convinced otherwise; I don’t like this wording
either.
Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 3:07 PM Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 25/03/2024 19:13, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> > Amend rule 2478 (“Justice”) by replacing: {
> > A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
> > committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
> > incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
> > it has one).
> > } with {
> > A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
> > committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
> > incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
> > it has one); but a player CANNOT note an infraction that has
> > already been investigated.
> > }
>
> Could this not more succinctly just be "...an unforgiven, uninvestigated
> infraction"? The rule is already quite long and hard to parse.
>
> -Kate
I suggest "un-noted" to prevent all instances of noting 1 infraction
multiple times.
--
snail
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo
On 25/03/2024 19:13, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> Amend rule 2478 (“Justice”) by replacing: {
> A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
> committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
> incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
> it has one).
> } with {
> A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
> committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
> incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
> it has one); but a player CANNOT note an infraction that has
> already been investigated.
> }
Could this not more succinctly just be "...an unforgiven, uninvestigated
infraction"? The rule is already quite long and hard to parse.
-Kate
