Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Crime and Punishment

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 6, 2007, at 12:29 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:

> I submit the following Proposal, entitled "Crime and Punishment":
>
> {
> Create a rule entitled "Criminal Offenses" with the following text:
> {{
> A Game Action is said to be Criminal if the Rules state that the
> Player who has taken that action shall not do so, or if the action is
> defined by rule to be a Misdemeanor or a Felony.

Can we drop all this "said to be" nonsense? If an action is a  
Misdemeanor, then it *is* Criminal, not just "said to be" Criminal. We  
do this a lot in the rules, I think.

Also, "shall not do so": does it have to be explicitly that phrase?

> No player shall be punished for a Criminal Action unless he has been
> found guilty by a Consultation on a Question of his guilt for a
> particular action.

This is redundant, since the only way a criminal can be punished is as  
a result of a Priest assigning a Punishment.

> When an Answer to a Consultation on a Player's guilt becomes Pondered,
> he shall be assigned a Punishment.  This punishment must accord with
> the minimum and maximum sentencing guidelines for the Crime in
> question.  The punishment shall be assigned by the Priest who answered
> the Question of guilt if his Answer indicated that the Player in
> question was guilty, or by the Oracle if the Priest's answer indicated
> that the Player was not guilty and his Answer was subsequently found
> to be INCONSISTENT.  Any Player can, with 4 support, declare a penalty
> to be UNFAIR and reduce it to the minimum for the crime in question.

If the Oracle kills someone and gets accused, the priest finds em not  
guilty, and the ruling is overturned, the Oracle gets to choose eir  
own sentence. I'm not sure how to fix that, but it's a problem.

> The Oracle cannot ZOT a question into his own guilt in a criminal  
> matter.

Even if such a question is legitimately ZOTable? Maybe instead you  
could only allow the Oracle to ZOT such a consultation with support or  
without objection.

> If not defined otherwise, all criminal offenses are Misdemeanors.

<logical pedantry>
As soon as some action is made a Felony, it is no longer the case that  
all criminal offenses are "not defined otherwise", so suddenly we no  
longer have a default severity.

> When not otherwise specified, the minimum punishment for a Misdemeanor
> shall be a fine of 1m and the maximum a fine of 50m.

Otherwise specified *by the rules*, methinks... As opposed to "by the  
judge of the case" or "by the accused".

> When not otherwise specified, the minimum punishment for a Felony
> shall be a fine of 25m and the maximum a fine of 500m.

Likewise.

> Murder is a Felony that consists of intentionally causing another
> Player's Hit Points to become nonpositive.

How do you judge "intentionally"? If I intentionally blow up a  
building in order move an army of airspeeders past it, and as a side  
effect you die, have I murdered you? Or are you leaving that to the  
discretion of the Priests?

Once this rule is in place we could bring back the Cursed Sushi of  
Babel.

-- 
Wonko
Ass the flag thing in!

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss