Re: [s-d] [s-b] blah

[James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

There should definitely be some guidance given in the rules for penalties but it might be necessary to come up with different penalties in some cases so the rule should say "SHOULD".

Also, an ocularity and judgement should be kept together so that when a judgement is voted against, both the judgement and ocularity are discarded and the consultation is judged again. There should be room for a consultation to go on until the players agree on it and whether it is accepted or not should be based on a proper system of voting like what we have for proposals but tracked by the oracle and perhaps with shorter voting periods. This could justify giving ocularities gamstate changing power similar to proposals but as they would have a power lower than the rules then they would be incapable of changing the rules and would be safer. The one problem with this is that gremlins are secured so a provision for that may need to be made in the rule defining ocularities e.g. "an ocularity may state that it creates up to X gremlins in the possesion of one player, in which case this rule shall create the specified amount of gremlins in the possesion of the specified player if the ocularity passes." where X should be some suitable maximum penalty.

> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:48:33 -0500
> From: teucer@xxxxxxxxx
> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] blah
> 
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:10 PM, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > consultation + ocularity is simpler than having the four types of judicial case we have now as any cleanup, punishment or other
> > effect of a judgement can be included for any type of case with ocularities. As to Bn consent for ocularities, I think there should be
> > some voting system for the judgement and ocularity together (so the ocularity only passes if the judgement passes) this could allow
> > for a reassigning system for consultations and replace appeals, also allowing us to keep debating until we have majority agreement.
> 
> Under the consultation system this was the case, though an appellate
> judge could uphold the judgement but not the oracularity.
> 
> This has two unfortunate effects, both small.
> 
> 1. It's dumb to have to call something that's not inconsistent
> inconsistent when you strongly dislike the oracularity, and I think
> people at least sometimes hesitate to do so.
> 
> 2. There was no consensus about what oracularities should be for
> certain sorts of offenses.
> 
> Proto: Replace CFJs with a revival of the Consultation system, though
> with our current bench-rotating mechanic or a simplified version
> thereof in place.
> 
> 1. The rules spell out "default" oracularities in a variety of
> different situations, and judges SHOULD NOT stray far from the
> defaults without good reason.
> 
> 2. Appeals of Consultations and appeals of Oracularities are distinct,
> though if a result is overturned obviously the Oracularity must be
> thrown out also. Appealing a Consultation requires 2 Bn Consent, and
> throws out the result and the Oracularity; the Oracle then CAN and
> SHOULD appoint an appellate judge to write a replacement Oracularity,
> which is subject to all the normal Oracularity-appealing rules.
> 
> 3. Appealing an Oracularity merely requires 1/2 Bn Consent. If an
> Oracularity is successfully appealed, then the Oracle appoints an
> appellate judge to pick one of the following options:
> 
>   A. UPHOLD, keeping the same Oracularity in place
>   B. ADJUST, writing a new Oracularity which SHALL be as close as
> possible to the default Oracularity for the CFJ in question
>   C. NULL, in which the new Oracularity is one that does not alter the
> gamestate.
> 
> Appellate judges in this situation do not become Sitting by default.
> 
> 4. All current crimes gain their current gremlin penalties as default
> Oracularities; in other situations, disobeying a SHALL becomes a crime
> with a set default Oracularity. NOVs are gone, you just Consult on
> whether a crime occurred and it is subject to the above rules.
> 
> 5. All precedent becomes non-binding in the general sense, though the
> specific situation of a Pondered Consultation was correct and
> judgements impacted it SHALL accept that specific situation as having
> worked the way the prior Consultation says they did. That is, past
> judgements are correct statements about the platonic gamestate but
> merely SHOULD be accepted as guidance for how to resolve other
> situations. This makes familiarity with a long stare decisis, a la
> Agora, unnecessary.
> 
> 6 (not a needed part of the overall reform but it'd be cool and
> BINAly). There exist Protest Gnomes, which are neither trivially cheap
> nor prohibitively costly to make. You can destroy a Protest Gnome when
> an appeal is underway to add an extra vote one way or the other to the
> appeals process. Possibly to any matter requiring n Bn consent, even.
> 
>  - teucer
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Got more than one Hotmail account? Save time by linking them together
 http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394591/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss