DISCUSSION: * Renaming units & cities

[Daghdha]

Basing a rule on intent is folly

Thanks for stating it so firm and clear. This position is what post #75 was all about. "The contex of function" is a matter of intent and without it we would not see the difference between manslaughter and murder. Kant would have said that killing is wrong no matter what , that it's imperative not to kill. My law book is stuffed with that, and I wouldn't, without hesitation, call it "folly".
Sorry for not being able to keep out of this discussion. I'll give it a nother try...

 

[donsig]

"The contex of function" is a matter of intent and without it we would not see the difference between manslaughter and murder. Kant would have said that killing is wrong no matter what , that it's imperative not to kill.

It's too bad you're not part of this discussion any more. I'd really like to know if we agree on this or not. I'm with Kant on this one and I'd have to say, so is the law. Whether it is murder or manslaughter they are both illegal. There's also negligent homicide. Isn't that where someone kills someone else without intending to? Still illegal.

0.0.1 - Definitions

Intent: Many of the below rulings are based on the intent of a team or individual. Intent is determined by the Game Staff and is only decided after investigation.

DaveShack, this refers to the next section in the rules which is about punishment for breaking the rules. Yes, it's appropriate to take intent into consideration when deciding upon punishment. That's why the law recognizes so many variations from negligent homicide to murder one. But behind every variant lies the imperative not to kill.

Translating this over to our game and ruleset we're trying to write rules with the imperative that no person or team is allowed an unfair advantage. The current rule (2.4) does this. Unfortunately it also allows teams to invoke the rule in a way that gives them an unfair advantage (whether intended or not). This should be changed.

I have made a specific proposal for a rule change. No one has suggested any modifications to it so I now ask that this proposal be put to a team vote:

2.4 - Fair trades and peace treaties; unit transparency

Description: No team or individual is permitted to misrepresent what is offered in trades or peace treaties. No team or individual is permitted to misrepresent unit types.

Definition: Cities can be renamed to names of tech or sums of gold or anything else in an effort to not trade what that opponent agreed to. Units can be renamed to other units and appear to be something else entirely.

Purpose: To prevent the misleading of another team through malicious use of in-game features.

Verdict: Using the renaming 'feature' to name a city after a tech or sum of gold is a violation of this rule. Using the renaming 'feature' to name a unit after another type of unit is a violation of this rule.

Punishment Level: Once – Red (5-Expulsion and forfeiture of double what was not legally traded)

 

[Daghdha]

Ahhw, bummer . We cannot in a meaningful way separate the verdict from the punishment. The verdict is not sensitive to intent, but the punishment is indeed. The value of the rule is related to the magnitude of the punishment. The lesser the punishment, the less valuable the rule. What I mean is the law and the consequenses that follows breaking it is inseparable, thus, the law/punishment deal with intent. If we said that the punishment for breaking the rule was that the team had to post "sorry", then we wouldn't care that much about how the rule was stated. If the punishment was immediate exclusion from MTDG it would be very interesting how the rule was formulated.
Kant doesn't deal with intent because he thought it was irrelevant. The law book does.
Don't know if i contribute or just bug .

 

[RegentMan]

Link to the amendment thread. Please keep that thread clear of discussion and continue to debate the amendment here.

 

[DaveShack]

comment withdrawn, I was on page 2 of the thread and not page 3, and overlooked that the comment quoted was very old. apologies to anyone who saw what was in this post momentarily.