Subject: Proposals 75 and 76 -- Yipes!

From: "Doctroid " <hrholmes@m...>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:15:54 -0000

These two proposals have their good points, BUT are asieoniezi flawed
in one respect: If I am interpreting them correctly, they impose
consequences for actions FOR WHICH THERE IS NO UNIMPEACHABLE EVIDENCE.
That is, given that players describe their actions in *private email*
to the party's host, we have only the host's word for it that those
players in fact committed those actions. There's some recourse in P.
76, in that Players could vote against the consequence if they have
any doubts about the action taking place, but that warps the intent of
P. 76, where the vote is supposed to determine the validity of the
consequence, not the accuracy of the report of the action. It gets
worse with P. 77, where such a vote does not take place once a
precedent has been set.

Of course the affected Player(s) could make an Accusation against the
Host, but what evidence could be presented in support of such an
Accusation?

To answer my own question (I'm trying to think and write at the same
time here, don't try this at home) I suppose the testimony of other
party attendees could be presented -- for both sides. They'd be
testifying as to what happened at an imaginary event, which could get
hairy. Still, it might work.

I'd prefer a mechanism be codified in the Consequences process (c.f.
P. 73's Vouches), but maybe the Accusation process is suitable after
all?

- D

---

From: topheavy@s...
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:56:01 -0000

> worse with P. 77, where such a vote does not take place once a

With regards to private email...

The reason for Private email in this case (over direct Posts to the 
AML) is that it means that nobody will be creating actions based on 
what someone else wrote. I think it will set up a nice dynamic of 
interactions.. similar to going to a party and not knowing what to 
expect. If this could be accomplished somehow outside of private 
email, i would welcome the suggestion.. i have another discussion 
regarding this.. that message will follow.

I did notice a flaw today, where the Host emself would actually be 
required to send themselves an email to announce eir actions. 
something to fix if the proposal passes i believe.

With regards to enforcement...

The rule plainly states that a host must include the behavior email 
verbatim. If this is not done, theoretically the player who wrote 
said email will notice and accuse the Host of illegality, backed up 
probably by the original email.

Which brings us to the question, Why would a Host want to modify the 
behavior of their guest? If consequences are set in stone (such as 
prop 75 and 77) then a host could modify behavior to match a 
consequence. If consequences are voted on, then there is no direct 
result of cheating, which would discourage the practice, why risk 
cheating if you don't definitely gain anything?

and the last control would simply be that 
1) you are never required to go to a party
2) you are never required to submit behavior
3) anyone can be a host.

Been cheated by a player and lost your accusation? don't go to their 
parties. or only host parties.

And of course, the last one would be that i don't think any of us 
really want to succeed in Social nomic by cheating.
Exploiting loopholes perhaps. But not by illegal actions.

So, i am not too worried about enforcement, though i do think that 
precedent (prop 77) should not be final. Perhaps precedent would 
give the poster of the consequence an extra FOR/AGAINST vote? This 
would keep the process mutable and still provide a reason for 
inflicting the same consequence on a particular action.

-topheavy