Re: [s-d] [s-b] ais523's Refresh Proposal

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ehird wrote:

> On 8 Dec 2008, at 11:06, Alex Smith wrote:
> 
>> (The argument in Agora was about whether it was acceptable to
>> deliberately violate such a rule; IMO, the intention of such rules is
>> that accidental violations work but are illegal, and players who are
>> abiding the rules shouldn't violate them deliberately).
> 
> I, along with comex, disagree, by the way, because as there is an
> in-game resolution mechanism, the criminal system, it is acceptable
> to violate SHALL NOTs if you believe you can take the punishment.

Ah yes, I was just about to point out that some consider "X has a fee
of Y" and "X has a penalty of Y" as socially, as well as mechanically,
equivalent.  There's also a side debate over whether it's acceptable
to violate SHALL NOTs if you believe you can use the letter of the law
to scam your way out of the intended punishment.

And there's also a general undercurrent of annoyance with any actions
that don't adequately explain why they are thought to work.  For
instance, I've personally changed policy to include quoted material as
evidence in judicial cases, e.g.

{{{
On <date>, <other player> said:
> blah blah
> blah blah

I call for judgement on the statement "<something related to blah>".
}}}

even if the caller doesn't explicitly request its inclusion, because
it saves the judge the trouble of hunting down the call message.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss