311: Sanctions

[MrHug]

In light of the possible violations of rules outlined in #13 and maybe in #16, some sanctions seem to be required.

[pimotte]

I can get with the general idea, but I'd like there to be a possibility to backtrack if no damage was done. Or maybe 4 points if the violation lead to an adapted rule-change, and 1 point otherwise.

[MrHug]

Hmm, well I considered just outlying a "trial procedure" which ensures judgement must be invoked when a sanction is committed, but I figured I'd start small.

I could make this slightly more elaborate if you like :)

[pimotte]

I'd mainly like the ability to somehow not sanction people for small violations that don't really affect the rule-changing process or the flow of gameplay.

[MrHug]

Right and I guess judgement is not sufficient for that atm, as there would be no rule that allows the judge to legally remove the sanction...

I'll type something up for this in a bit.

[arthurbik]

judgement -> Judgement

Also:
If the player accused of breaking the rules claims to be innocent he can invoke judgement to resolve the issue.
This is also true without is being in this rule explicitely.

How about adding the option to remove the sanction when a majority of other players votes for it?

[MrHug]

I've given this quite an overhaul, but I think this would be a good system for resolving future sanctions.

[pimotte]

Last but one bullet point should refer to the procedure of "invoking Judgement".

Who is the jury?

[MrHug]

Added a clause for jury selection.
Also updated my point total to four as 8d5c5d8 contains cafe in its hash.

[pimotte]

Do we need a procedure for a hung jury? (Proposal, in case of non-consensus, each jury member votes for a penalty, which are averaged and rounded to the nearest integer.)

[MrHug]

Good point, added it in.

The only thing I still feel is missing is an alternative means of punishment. I think we can add that later through other rules though and would be hard to quantify in terms of extremes anyway, so perhaps we do not want alternative means yet.

[pimotte]

I'd really like the "rounded" part in there, because I'm going to be very annoyed if we have to deal with fractional points:P

[MrHug]

Well there is no rule that forbids fractional points right now (I think?) But sure I'll add that ;)

[arthurbik]

proposol -> proposal

[arthurbik]

If we have a rule that describes what happen when a rule is broken, shouldn't it include what needs to be undone for the game to continue? Like going back to the last game state where no rule has been broken.

[MrHug]

Fair point @arthurbik, I have included a clause for this as well.
It has grown quite extensive now though, perhaps a more streamlined format is needed?

[arthurbik]

Let me try and learn something:
この - this
提案 proposal
を - indicates that the next verb does something to "this proposal"
治させたら - something with 治す that changed "to correct" to "if ... were to be corrected"
この提案 - this proposal
に - indicates that the next verb targets "this proposal"
賛成 - approval
です - states that something is so

The "I" in the translation comes from context in presume? Am I correct in thinking that the Japanese sentence could also mean "If this proposal were to be corrected, this proposal would be approved." if many people had already voted in favor of the proposal?

[pimotte]

The verb in the first part is indeed a passive form, conjugated to the past. A past verb plus ら gets you the past conditional. The ...に賛成です construct is more "in favour of" or "agreeing with", where the です is something I have learned as "state of being" (polite). The "to be approved" could, I think, be expressed by attaching a passive of する (to do).

[MrHug]

👍

[pimotte]

👍

[MrHug]

This is still open, meaning we still can not deal with rule violations. @jdonkervliet or @arthurbik could you read it through and let me know if you want anything changed?

[MrHug]

The fact that someone directly contradicts a rule can only be established by a Judge, right?

Not necessarily. A Judge is for any conflict of rules, thus also hypothetical situations or "is this still allowed situations" for which the rules are not clear. This new rule would make violations of rules a matter for Trial, rather than Judgement.

an alternative punishment in the form of a non-negative point reduction no larger than that of the prosecution.

Doesn't the defender have the right to remain silent?

Not in this Trial ;) The defense in any criminal trial should always make a claim for Guilty/Not Guilty and in the case of the first, also describe what sentence they would find reasonable.

Jury member should not be able to vote Guilty if no rule were broken (even if someone says that a rule has been broken)

Well like I said above, I think this would replace Judgement for violations of rules, thus it is up to the jury to decide if a rule has been broken or not.

[arthurbik]

Under these rules, won't I just always ask for an alternative punishment consisting of a reduction of -100000000000000000000 points?

ahhh,

an alternative punishment in the form of a non-negative point reduction no larger than that of the prosecution.

and

Doesn't the defender have the right to remain silent?

where two separate things.

[MrHug]

But you need to ask for a non-negative point reduction, so that would be impossible?

As for the right to remain silent, in the US for instance this is part of the constitution, not part of criminal law. I think we could also benefit from a immutable rule that states something like "a player is always free to remain from commenting when asked a question. The choice to not answer a question may never be considered a violation of rules, no matter what other rules state."

[arthurbik]

Note that non-negative is not in the proposal. It is what I want to add to the proposal.

[MrHug]

Ah ok, I didn't realise I was missing that, I thought you just quoted part of the rule ;)

I've added that in now, but not the right to remain silent for now as I think that should be more general than just in Trials. For instance you should be allowed to not defend a proposal either (though chances of it being accepted will drop then of course ;))

[MrHug]

👍

[arthurbik]

If you agree that the right to remain silent should exist in some form, then can you remove the "the defendant is obliged to answer these questions to the best of his abilities." part? Or simply replace obliged by encouraged.

[MrHug]

Hmmm, well basically I want to prevent lying (you know, just like in real courts :P)
So I think that the best solution is to have "obliged" here and then allow silence by some other rule. This would give you the choice between "the best of his abilities" (i.e. his truth) or "silence".
Having encouraged here, would mean that lying is also fine. It would be the choice between "the best of his abilities" (i.e. his truth), "lies", or "silence".

[arthurbik]

Any rule that that makes it so that you don't have to answer, would be in conflict with this rule.

It would be better to add a rule which state that you aren't allowed to lie.

[MrHug]

I agree, every rule for silence would conflict, but this rule would win because the number is lower. Unless we make that rule for silence immutable, then it would win and that's what I want to achieve.
EDIT: That way in any circumstance you can always choose to remain silent, as an immutable rule always wins from a mutable rule in conflicts.

I would be fine with a clause or rule that states lying during a Trial is in itself a violation of the rules for which you can be put on Trial (aka perjury), but that is already implicit if we have an immutable rule for the right to remain silent.

[arthurbik]

If you want to overrule a part of the rule-change that i don't like, then can't we just agree to change it?

Having the right to remain silent does not give you the right to lie, in my opinion.

[MrHug]

Fair enough, but I have made that more explicit.
After this has been merged, I will be formulating a "right to remain silent" as a general rule as well.

[arthurbik]

👍

[pimotte]

👍

[pimotte]

Still needs @MrHug s vote, since it looks like e56ba34 was after his last vote.

[MrHug]

👍

[MrHug]

With 3 votes in favor, among 4 players, a simple majority has been achieved, so by rule 203, the suggested rule-change is adopted. As prescribed by rule 306, I will merge this pull request.