Subject: Some recent proposals

From: "Doctroid " <rsholmes@m...>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 14:58:28 -0000

P101: It's good to see someone besides me is interested in improving
the Accusations rule. While I still believe minor errors should be
dealt with informally (and perhaps that principle should be codified
in some way, although I'm not sure how), the structure of Socialnomic
is such that the existence of a process such as this is essential to
the correct decentralized administration of the game. As such, the
process should be well-defined, effective, and efficient. P101 takes
an expedicious step in that direction. However, it has the
recalcitrant feature that it fails to make clear whether the
defendant, when pleading guilty, is to post an update of gamedata as
affected by the revocation of the illegal act, or whether the
defendant merely need deduct 10 points from his total and leave the
unwinding to someone else.

P102: I think this proposal deserves some explanation. What's the
intended function of the DoJ? So far it's nothing but a point sink...
and I'm a little uneasy over the existence of an institution whose
sole source of funding is accusations. It smells slightly of a
small-town speed trap.

- D

---

From: "Oloros the Blue" <oloros@l...>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 16:33:14 -0000

(Re: Some recent proposals)
(an opinion on the the justice system foolowed by a response to 
Doctroids comments on P101)

> [Doctroid]
> While I still believe minor errors should be dealt with 
> informally (and perhaps that principle should be codified
> in some way, although I'm not sure how), 
>
The Accusations process is composed of two phases. The initial 
Accusation is a sort of warning shot. The cost of pleading 
guilty at this phase was carefully set to be equal to the award 
for having a proposal pass. I think that we can reasonably expect
that any given player will have at least one proposal pass each 
week, so this penalty is a bit of a slap on the hand. If an 
Accusation should move into the second phase (which I'd like to 
see renamed), it is a more serious matter. As it is if the 
Accusation should be wagered upon with an Injunction. 

It might be interesting to track the number of times any 
particular player has (1) been accused, (2) pleaded guilty, 
(3) been fully accused. I'm not so sure what we might do with 
this data, maybe just affect Social Standing and dole out a nice 
title. Actually, I might make propose such an expeditious proposal. 
The data would only need be updated when making Accusations/Guilty 
Pleads/Etc.

There is a decent level of balance operating in the background 
of this process: The institution of the State, its ability to 
tax and provide, allows one to play with a small amount of abandon.

> [Doctroid]
> P101 takes an expedicious step in that direction. However, it 
> has the recalcitrant feature that it fails to make clear whether the
I expect of an Accusing Player that said Player has a good idea of 
what 
should happen to correct an error in gamedata. This does place the 
game
data in a mutable state for a little while, but we have been 
careful, so far, not to call a major change in the game data while it
hangs so precariously.

---

From: "Oloros the Blue" <oloros@l...>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 16:43:58 -0000

> [Doctroid]
> P102: I think this proposal deserves some explanation. What's 
> the intended function of the DoJ? So far it's nothing but a 
> point sink...
> and I'm a little uneasy over the existence of an institution 
> whose sole source of funding is accusations. 
>
The whole of my intent in this Proposal was to begin to wind up the 
economic loop, at least the level that deals with Points. I really 
do not know just what it is that the DoJ is to fund with its 
ill-begotten capital, partly because I do not see anything 
immediately appropriate. I do not see it as a point sink, though, 
just a holding pen, a hedge fund. I am just as undecided as Doctroid 
as to whether I find this Proposal expeditious or recalcitrant.

-Oloros