acka-research Digest Friday, December 18 1998 Volume 03 : Issue 300 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jobollin@iumsc4.chem.indiana.edu (John Bollinger) Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3921 Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 11:06:35 -0500 (EST) I am voting for P3921, and I shall be very disappointed if the rule harfer scams the privilege granted to him to renumber rules. ThinMan ------------------------------ From: John Frederic Mc Coy Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3919 Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 12:52:40 -0500 (EST) I think that this proposal is a (no offense intended here) remarkably bad idea. Let me explain why. On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 devjoe@wilma.che.utexas.edu wrote: > Proposal 3919 > Outdated Rules Crusade > else...if > Due: Thu Dec 24 16:13:25 1998 > > I was young and foolish then, I'm old and foolish now (well, not > that foolish, I fixed at least one program) > Amend rule 710 to read as delimited by IRON > IRON > A Crime Hearing is a Hearing. If a player believes that another > player (the Dirty Crook) is guilty of a Crime then they may call a Crime > Hearing against them iff e has the SHF. When a player calls a Crime > Hearing e transfers the SHF to the Treasury and may specify a penalty, as > defined below. The player who calls the hearing is the Judge (Hearing > Harfer). The legal responses are "Innocent", "Guilty, I guess", and "Lock > 'em up and throw away the key". The winning response is determined as > follows: > 1) If one response has an absolute majority, it wins. > 2) Otherwise, if all three are equal, "Innocent" wins > 3) Otherwise, if one has an absolute majority ignoring EBS votes, > that response wins > 4) Otherwise, if the total votes for "Guilty, I guess" and "Lock > 'em up and throw away the key" are greater than the total votes for > "Innocent", "Guilty, I guess" wins > 5) Otherwise, if the total votes for "Guilty, I guess" and "Lock > 'em up and throw away the key" are greater than the total votes for > "Innocent", ignoring EBS's "Guilty, I guess" wins > 6) Otherwise "Innocent" wins > By replacing CFCJs with a Hearing, we eliminate a number of beneficial features of our criminal justice system for little or no gain. We would no longer have the ability to appeal verdicts. We would also lose the ability to appeal for pardon. So the first verdict in a criminal trial would be final. There is also no limitation on the number of times a player can be convited of the same crime. I consider all of these facts bad things. Far worse, however, is the fact that a crime hearing is not required to return a judgment in agreement with the rules. A player can be charged with a Crime that he never commited, and be convicted, and all of this would be perfectly legal. I find the implications of all of this to be downright frightening. If we were to pass this proposal, our criminal justice system would resemble nothing more closely than a lynch mob. I wouldn't even call it a criminal justice system anymore, because there's no justice in here at all. The new system, then, would blow the door WIDE open for scams. Hearings don't generally have all that high of a turn-out. Get three friends to help you, a few ballot stuffers, and you should have little trouble getting players thrown in Gaol, kicked out of Orgs, fined, etc. Get a few more people to help you, and you turn Acka into your own little police state. Vote for my proposal or get kicked out of the game. Now I know what supporters of this proposal will say. They'll say that no one would ever do these things. Maybe, MAYBE, they're right. I don't really expect we would get a police state, for example. But I do believe that if we have a big, stinky, neon-lighted loophole like this lying around, begging to be used, that someone is going to take advantage of it. All of Acka's history supports me in this. Yes there are some safeguards in this system. But they are weak, and will never be as safe as the CFCJ system. CFCJs are required to be in accordance with the rules. While I will grant you that it is possible a player would deliberately render an incorrect verdict on a CFCJ, at least there would the ability to appeal. And if the Supreme Court is willing to rig their CFJ appeals, well then I guess we might as well all quit. Please vote no on this proposal. Vynd jmccoy@umich.edu ------------------------------ From: "Gavin M. Doig" Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3919 Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 14:11:52 -0500 (EST) >I find the implications of all of this to be downright frightening. If we >were to pass this proposal, our criminal justice system would resemble >nothing more closely than a lynch mob. What's wrong with that? Burn the Witch, I say! (I bet you didn't expect that!) How do you know she is a witch? Because the Hearing said so! Please vote yes on this proosal, and we'll all go round to Vynd's house and burn im for his disturbing lack of faith! smallpox blanket. ------------------------------ From: Towsner Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3919 Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:50:58 -0500 (EST) >Yes there are some safeguards in this system. But they are weak, and will >never be as safe as the CFCJ system. CFCJs are required to be in >accordance with the rules. While I will grant you that it is possible a >player would deliberately render an incorrect verdict on a CFCJ, at least >there would the ability to appeal. And if the Supreme Court is willing to >rig their CFJ appeals, well then I guess we might as well all quit. Following the rules has never been a major theme in CFCJ's. Many Crimes (like some of the Annoyances) are ambiguous enough that it's up to the whim of the Judge. However most Crimes are already judged by public opinion. Players who violate the letter of the law but not the spirit are given slap on the wrist punishments, and the prosecutors are often more punished than the criminal. Let's admit that we don't want inflexible crime laws, and that instead we want people convicted because we think what they did was wrong. -- -Henry Towsner Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and enjoy it. -Logan Pearsall Smith ------------------------------ From: John Frederic Mc Coy Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3919 Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 18:18:26 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Towsner wrote: > >Yes there are some safeguards in this system. But they are weak, and will > >never be as safe as the CFCJ system. CFCJs are required to be in > >accordance with the rules. While I will grant you that it is possible a > >player would deliberately render an incorrect verdict on a CFCJ, at least > >there would the ability to appeal. And if the Supreme Court is willing to > >rig their CFJ appeals, well then I guess we might as well all quit. > Following the rules has never been a major theme in CFCJ's. Many > Crimes (like some of the Annoyances) are ambiguous enough that it's up to > the whim of the Judge. However most Crimes are already judged by public > opinion. Players who violate the letter of the law but not the spirit are > given slap on the wrist punishments, and the prosecutors are often more > punished than the criminal. Let's admit that we don't want inflexible > crime laws, and that instead we want people convicted because we think what > they did was wrong. First of all, I deny that this is what I want. Now, if setting up a system where we could punish players for doing "wrong" was all this proposal was going to accomplish, I could live with it. I still wouldn't like it very much, but it wouldn't be too bad. But this system goes far beyond allowing us to punish "wrongdoing." The proposed system lets players punish anyone for anything. It makes "justice" completely arbitrary. This proposal will turn our justice system into a weapon waiting to be used. A weapon which any moderately sized group of players can use to strip players of their property, freedom to act, and even playerdom. Vynd jmccoy@umich.edu > > -- > -Henry Towsner > > > > Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and > enjoy it. > -Logan Pearsall Smith > > > > ------------------------------ End of acka-research Digest V3 #300 ***********************************