Re: [s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] ?Rodney submits p1954

[Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 12:29:52 -0500, Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 4, 2004, at 12.14 PM, Bryan Donlan wrote:
> 
> > On Sat,  4 Dec 2004 17:05:07 +0000 (GMT), automailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > <automailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> ?Rodney has submitted a new proposal, p1954.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------
> >> Proposal 1954/0: Enforcement of the uninforceable
> >> A New Rule by ?Rodney
> >> Last modified on nweek 74, nday 1
> >>
> >> Players have an attribute called Merit.A player starts with 10 merit.
> >> At the end of the Nweek all players gain one Merit.
> >>
> >> If a player delibretly attempts to break a rule then e loses 1
> >> Permenent Honor and Merit equal to the Chutzpah of the rule e
> >> attempted to break.
> >
> > This is unenforcable. We cannot distinguish reliably behind an
> > accidental rulebreaking and intentional. Moreover, this discourages
> > scams, which are part of the fun of nomic :)
> 
> Scams happen when something is permitted by the rules by accident, and
> so performing a scam doesn't actually break the rules. But if you try a
> scam which fails because of a rule you overlooked, then you'd lose some
> Merit as a result.
> 
> I do agree that "deliberately" is unenforceable.
> 
> >> There exists a Game Object known as Jail.If a player has less than 0
> >> merit then e goes to Jail.Players in Jail cannot take Game Actions.
> >> If a player in jail has 0 or more Merit then e ceases to be in Jail
> >
> > And how would e gain Merit in Jail?
> 
> E gets one every nweek (third sentence of the rule).
> 
> >> [[
> >> The point of this is to enforce rules such as Rule 636/1
> >> ]]
> >
> > We don't 'enforce' rules. If a player ignores a rule, eir actions have
> > no effect. Simple as that.
> 
> But this would allow us to pseudo-enforce things that couldn't
> otherwise be enforced... we could bring back the Cursed Sushi, for
> example, and while you would be capable of sending normal messages
> because the rules can't force you not to, we can put you in jail if you
> send out too many.

That would work, but I'd prefer that losing merit be explicit in that
case. Simply saying it happens when one deliberately breaks the rules
won't work imo.
-- 
bd
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss