>read #43827 Banishment Petition ------------------- by Bakunin (#3553) [Last edited before the system kept track of the time] Synopsis This proposal describes a consensus-based banishment mechanism which disables an abusive player for a specfic interval, increasing with each subsequent banishment until the abusive player is disabled indefinitely. Specifics Players eligible to invoke this mechanism must prove they are serious members of the MOO-community. Since longevity seems a reasonable measure of seriousness, eligible players are those who have been in residence on LambdaMOO for longer than one year. Banishment is deemed to have occurred when 30 different, eligible players invoke the @banish verb on a particular player in a 48-hour period. The banished player is then disabled from logging onto the MOO for a period of 1 week, and if connected at the time of the banishment, booted. Subsequent banishments work the same way (30 @banishes in 48 hours), but the duration of the banishment increases. Banishment Period ---------- ------ First 1 week Second 3 weeks Third forever Each invocation of @banish prompts the player for an description of the offending behavior; this entry is appended, with the player's name and a time-stamp, into a notepad-type object readable by everyone. Explanation and Rationale Social justice is a problematic subject, open to all sorts of formal and informal abuse. Until now, we've had to rely on the wizards to protect us from abuse: a situation unfair to players, because executive power resides elsewhere, and unfair to wizards, imposing on them a role they never selected, as judge and executor. Players who have been on the MOO for less than a year may feel disaffected about the 1-year residency requirement for use of @banish. The proposal tries to find a useful and fair compromise between the extremely selective notion of investing only wizards with executive power, and the danger of capricious action by newer players who may not be as emotionally invested in the community. Banishment is a last resort of social control, and as such should only be applied to players guilty of direct, personal, and hurtful attacks, such as depiction of unwanted sexual or violent imagery directed against an unwilling partner. Political disagreements, personality clashes, arguments about the weather or sports, stupidity, dumb weapon spamming, and unsolicited teleportation are NOT activities that fall into this category, because other, more reasonable avoidance methods exist (@gag, @refuse, et cetera). The only other social behavior punishable by banishment is misuse of @banish, adjudicated by the community in an appropriate forum. (End of text.) >@read 1-$ on *p:ban Message 1 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Tue May 4 21:01:52 1993 PDT From: Banishment (#43827) To: *Wizard-List (#6428), Bakunin (#3553), and *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Subject: Request for vetting Reply-to: Bakunin (#3553), *Wizard-List (#6428), and *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Bakunin, the author of Petition:Banishment (#43827): `Banishment Petition', has acquired 10 signatures on his petition and is submitting it to you, the wizards, for vetting. Please look it over and either 1) type `approve #43827' to grant it your mark of approval or 2) reply to this message explaining your reasons for refusing to do so. Thank you for your attention to this matter. -------------------------- Message 2 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Tue May 4 21:11:18 1993 PDT From: Banishment (#43827) To: Bakunin (#3553), *Wizard-List (#6428), and *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Subject: Petition approved Reply-to: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) The wizard Haakon has granted his mark of approval to Petition:Banishment (#43827): `Banishment Petition'. -------------------------- Message 3 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Tue May 4 22:10:44 1993 PDT From: Lambda (#50) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Subject: Why I'm not signing this petition Many people have noticed that Bakunin's proposal bears a certain resemblance to my ancient `marking' proposal (yet to be introduced as a petition). I agree, they are similar, but I don't believe that they're sufficiently so for Bakunin's to be to my taste. My biggest problem with his proposal is that it empowers too small a fraction of the people on the MOO. I don't believe that it's only people who've been around for a year who can tell that someone shouldn't be here; often, it's painfully obvious to everyone in a room, oldster or newbie, that someone is decidedly out of place here. For example, judging from what Geust has posted of the ravings of Dr_Jest, I'd say anyone could tell that he (1) was an asshole, (2) knew he was an asshole, and (3) had no interest in stopping being an asshole. Why should that vast majority of players who *haven't* been here for a year have the burden of having to seek out and convince enough ancient players to get rid of someone like that? I believe that this proposal makes it too difficult for the vast majority of players to deal with assholes, and that's the major reason I won't be signing this petition. I have other, lesser reasons, having mostly to do with my reasons for preferring details of my marking proposal over the details of Bakunin's, but I'll let those wait until I can get around to writing up mine as a petition of its own. -------------------------- Message 4 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Wed May 5 09:47:58 1993 PDT From: Bakunin (#3553) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Subject: Re: Why I'm not signing this petition I haven't seen the marking proposal, although a few folks mentioned it after my first post about banishment to *soc. I was in the living room for the Bungler episode, and agree that his extreme malicious intent was apparent to any but the most neophtye player (someone signing on for the first time might just think it was our normal mode of discourse, but most probably would not). I've also witnessed enough fighting in the living room to see that conflict often escalates to the highest level of damaging technology available (spamming, weapons, teleportation), for the most trivial of reasons. Almost invariably it is the newest players, who, perhaps naively, perhaps out of curiosity, are testing the limits of their powers at the slightest provocation. It isn't that my proposal implies that newer players are unable to recognize abuse when it manifests itself: It is that, in my experience, new players often mistake personality conflicts, disagreements, and trivial, easily-thwarted annoyances for the most extreme kind of social attack, and tend to want to respond with the most extreme level of force available to them. -------------------------- Message 5 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Thu May 6 15:41:07 1993 PDT From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Subject: Why Mickey didn't sign this For what it's worth, I just wanted to say that I think 48 hours is way too short a time to get 30 signatures of people who actually know what's going on. You might be able to rabble rouse people into acting on something they hadn't studied in that time, but it's not enough time to really get them to seriously consider the matter. I'd either lengthen the amount of time or shorten the number of signatures to compensate for the time allotted. I also think the time periods are way off. If 30 people really seriously agree that someone is a loser, sending him away for a week and having him come back (and probably be angry) a week later is just asking for trouble. I would prefer a month for first offenders, so that people have time to breathe in between. For a second offense, I think the penalty should be quite stiff. Like six months. Perhaps if you lowered it to a smaller number of people to get it done, I wouldn't mind reducing the penalty. e.g., if you're in a room with 8 other people and someone comes in and makes a general nuisance of him/herself, I wouldn't really mind if the unanimous vote of those 8 could send someone away for a week. But if you've gotten 30 people together, then you've had to go to people who weren't there since there are almost never 30 people witnessing, so the event must be severe. So either lower the number of people or raise the punishment. Finally, I note that the 48 hour deadline puts an incredible burden on people who are being harrassed and may just want quiet time afterward to calm down. If they know that @banishments start expiring in 48 hours, it puts a burden on them to keep up the heat or the punishment goes unpunished. This is a weird kind of slavery to put a harrassed person through, and I don't like that. Another reason to lengthen the time period. And now for a public service announcement: It was my wishing I could have had earlier input to this proposal before the numbers were fixed that caused me to want to write the Public Commentary petition. If you're reading this because you also didn't sign, or you signed reluctantly, you should read my petition and think about how it might have helped you. --M -------------------------- Message 6 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Thu May 6 16:32:36 1993 PDT From: PatGently (#37637) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Subject: 48 hours It seems to me that Mickey's objection to the 30-people-in-48-hours requirement is based on the assumption that people would want to banish someone for a single act, which, it is true, 30 people probably would not have witnessed. I think anyone truly deserving of banishment has probably done more than one Truly Obnoxious thing, and that between actual eyewitnesses and people who trust them, it would be reasonably easy to get 30 banishers in that time. I don't think it would require gathering banishers who knew nothing about the situation, or had no basis for believing or disbelieving the story. I haven't signed this petition yet for different reasons (I am still considering it): I think it ought to possible to countersign, cancelling someone's "vote" to banish. This would make it more difficult to gang up on someone without good reason, as Mickey is concerned about. -------------------------- Message 7 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Fri May 7 09:04:23 1993 PDT From: Bakunin (#3553) To: Networker (#50261) and *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Subject: Re: Mmmm.. (was 848 on *soc) You need to flesh out your critique. In what way is #43827 scary? To say that "justice is about people, not verbs" evades the issue that all of our interactions here are mediated by verbs. In real life society, "people" are secondary to a juridical mechanism that is no less a technology (in the sense of a formal tool) than verbs are, here. It seems to me that the banishment mechanism, being an attempt at balance between a formal system (the rules which constitute it, and the system within which it operates) and a consensus (people behaving in an autonomous fashion), comes closer to emphasizing the "people" portion of your equation than many real-world systems of justice. Bak -------------------------- Message 8 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Fri May 7 10:00:39 1993 PDT From: Euphistopheles (#50222) To: Bakunin (#3553) and *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Subject: signing the banishment petition It seems inappropriate for me to sign Bakunin's petition, since I would be disallowed from the proposed mechanism for 5 more months. For some of us, a year on the moo is a *very* long time; for others it is not. yoof -------------------------- Message 9 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Fri May 7 10:36:38 1993 PDT From: Dred (#49925) To: Euphistopheles (#50222) and *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Subject: Re: signing the banishment petition I think it's immaterial whether you would be eligible to use this mechanism or not when considering it. The question is whether you want such a system in place or not. Eventually, you would be eligible anyway. Dred -------------------------- Message 10 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Fri May 7 12:29:44 1993 PDT From: Praecox (#52694) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) and Bakunin (#3553) Subject: I propose a re-write: I propose you re-write the entire petition. The past messages have proposed some good solutions and number-tweaking. Here's my dos pesos: (1) Forget the 48 hour thing. I'm not sure what the purpose of a time-limit is for at all. Could you justify it? Why not just have @banish's accumulate on a person everyday? You could keep sending messages to the player in question, like, "Someone else just raised eir voice against you. If xx more people do so, you're outta here." Then, if someone knows that 5 more complaints will get em booted, e might mellow out, no? (2) Forget the 1-year. That's appropriate for ARB, but not for this sort of social issue. After all, this sort of banishment is supposed to protect *everyone*, not just old hands. Make it 1 month, if anything. (3) Given this, you'll have to raise the 30 req'd signatures to a higher number. Which is better anyway, since the higher the number, the lower the chance of massive gang-ups. So, come on. Tweak those numbers. Re-write the thing. It'll never get passed in it's current form. forget the 30 signatures... Yrs, prae -------------------------- Message 11 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Fri May 7 13:23:28 1993 PDT From: Kilik (#2819) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Subject: player ages w00f! In general I think its not a good idea to have rights and priviledges based on longevity. For example only player-objects created more than 1 year old can @banish. Either you are a member of the community or you are not, having various levels is silly. Heirarchies should be flattened, not raised, especially considering the medium we are in. Note that I'm not saying experience and compentence shouldn't count for something, just that they should in the right contexts, not universally. After all, I'm a dog but I have a programmer bit. Oh, and thanks to an anonymous player for translating this from w00f-ese into english. -------------------------- Message 12 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Fri May 7 13:36:51 1993 PDT From: .Chuck (#55212) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Subject: Re: player ages How about no newbies (as defined by @newbies)? Also, I agree with Praecox concerning that the player should be notified with "Only xx more voices raised and your outta here," but I think the 48 hour period should stay. If it's going to come to something like banning somone from the MOO (for -any- period of time) there should be a definite threshhold at which the decision is made, not just people here and there getting pissed off and sending in eir @banish notice to the offending player. James_Joyce -------------------------- Message 13 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Fri May 7 17:03:30 1993 PDT From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Subject: Different numbers I'll propose a specific set of alternate numbers as a straw-man. I think anyone that wants to criticize it should counter-propose an alternate set. Arguing about one number at a time is a problem because they're related--if you get fewer signatures, I want the person banned for less time. If you want more signatures, I want more time to get them. Others might disagree with my theory of how the numbers relate, and that's ok, but in the end we must still have one set, so propose a complete one that would make you happy. 30 signatures in one week to banish someone. First offense = 1 month Second offense = 6 months Third offense is permanent I chose one week because it means that if I have to work a normal job, I can find a time any time in my normal weekly cycle to lobby others to sign it. I'm not forced to call in sick some day just to stay home and make this arbitrary time limit. I left it at 30 signatures since I think that's above the number of close friends most people have, and I think it's good to require people to convince a few strangers that the problem was severe enough. I chose the penalties to be stiff enough to (a) give people time to breathe in between and (b) act as what I think would be an active deterrent. Oh well. I just bet others will disagree somehow, but I hope the resulting discussion will be more concrete and actually lead us to some common understanding of people's interests and constraints. -------------------------- Message 14 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Sun May 9 17:39:59 1993 PDT From: Lambda (#50) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Subject: My old marking proposal It seems like several on the people posting here were not around when I originally posted my marking proposal to *Social-Issues. I have resuscitated that posting as a note, #36563, which you are all invited to read. I am still interested in recasting this posting as a petition at some point and I still agree with everything in it. -------------------------- Message 15 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Mon May 10 10:04:50 1993 PDT From: Arracun (#53611) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Subject: Signed, but... I signed it, despite the fact that I have some problems with it (Like resenting being ineligible to @banish for 6 more months as it stands) If it passes, and I still think it imperfect, I'll circulate my own petition to amend it. -------------------------- Message 16 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Mon May 10 10:57:39 1993 PDT From: Bakunin (#3553) To: Haakon (#2), *social-issues (#7233), *Petition:Banishment (#43827), and *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: Re: Marking system petition You cannot propose a critique of power and defense of populism from a position of absolute power without acknowledging the problematic nature of the endeavor. Ignoring the work we've all tried to do, within conflict and comradery, to analyze power relations here, and reconstituting it in his own terms, Haakon is contradicting the goals he sets for himself, and by extension, the rest of the community: for collective empowerment. The cooptation of a specific style of critique, without any gesture to ongoing dialogue, is disingenuous. This isn't a question of Haakon's rights as a petitioner. It's a question of an ex machina style, his refusal to acknowledge ongoing dialogue and social trends, and his seemingly willful ignorance of the power that he holds. If anyone else posted to *soc implying that they'd just discovered the notion of "collective empowerment" and is down from the Mount to share it with us, we'd be amused or infuriated. A petition from Haakon, following on the heels of his imposition of democracy by fiat, holds far more potential power than any action of which anyone else here is remotely capable. Empowerment needs to arise from within the community. The petition system was imposed from outside -- but I am willing to work within it because it seems fair, despite the method of its arrival, and because it holds the promise of incorporating structural changes from within (e.g. distribution of previously-wizardly power). Blackmarking, in a sense, also arrives from outside, even if it was composed in November, 1992, because its arrival denotes the potential quashing of methods under debate, despite being a similar mechanism (banishment requires a one-year seniority and supplies no equivalent of "white-marking", but the proposal will be modified to encompass worthwhile suggestions I've received). If Haakon is truly interested in a banishment mechanism, and clearly he is, would it have not been a more "communal" gesture to make a detailed critique available to me, for possible incorporation into the banishment (#43827) petition? If someone had proposed a mechanism similar to one I had in mind, I would have first attempted to work with them before proposing a competing petition. -------------------------- Message 17 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Mon May 10 17:20:06 1993 PDT From: Tesser (#49838) To: *social-issues (#7233), *Petition:Banishment (#43827), and *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: Re: Marking system petition Bakunin, Haakon shared this with us on *soc quite as while ago. I imagine the posts are still in the *soc archives. He asked for input and we gave it. He also made it clear that he would be petitionizing it many times over. Perhaps you could have looked in the archives at that point if you weren't here when it was first suggested. Is he supposed to drag out his old posts and repost them just for you? I found his Blackmarking petitoin quite communal. -Tesser P.S. Sorry about the typos, my fingers are frozen. -------------------------- Message 18 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Mon May 10 18:07:10 1993 PDT From: Kilik (#2819) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Subject: w00F! w00F! w00F! 16! jargon! Ack! In spite of the lawyer/poli-sci/neo-Marxist lingo in post 16 (or perhaps because of it) I am going to vote against this proposal if it comes up to a vote. My reasons are simple, if subjective: banishment is the most extreme action that can be taken against a player and should be reserved for the most extreme offenses, which in my opinion are a) violating the integrity of the moo (cracking wizbits for example) or b) engaging in criminal activity using the moo (use your imagination). Being rude (while a drag) does not qualify in my book. Being annoying does not qualify either - I mean shall we @banish yduJ for her poison ivy? I'm sure a lot of players have been annoyed by that! And how about the cockatoo? etc, etc. -------------------------- Message 19 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Mon May 10 18:07:25 1993 PDT From: Xiombarg (#37636) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Subject: um..No. Sorry Bakunin, I don't consider Haakon to be Moses, and I doubt anyone else does. I thought the marking system was a bad idea at the time and still do. -Xi -------------------------- Message 20 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Mon May 10 18:26:25 1993 PDT From: Bakunin (#3553) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Subject: Assorted responses Re: wOOF! (.18) Lawyerly? I don't think so. I'm glad you think that "banishment is the most extreme action that can be taken against a player" et cetera. As I said in the petition: "Banishment is a last resort of social control, and as such should only be applied to players guilty of direct, personal, and hurtful attacks, such as depiction of unwanted sexual or violent imagery directed against an unwilling partner." Sorry if you disagree, and consider such behavior to be merely "rudeness." I explicitly state that being an annoyance doesn't qualify. Luckily, there are enough people around who believe that there are forms of behavior other than hacking the server that warrant extreme action. I'm not a Marxist (neo or otherwise), but I'm sure he'd be pleased that you think all critiques of power relations are explicitly Marxist. Re: Xiombarg (.19) I don't think Moses was particularly good at coding in anything but assembly. My point isn't that Haakon is Moses, but that his voice functions socially at an amplitude far greater than ours. Glad to hear that you are not swayed by the volume. :) -------------------------- Message 21 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Tue May 11 16:44:25 1993 PDT From: Lambda (#50) To: Kilik (#2819) and *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Subject: Re: w00F! I disagree with Kilik that we should consider other measures than banishment for `lesser offences'. I believe that banishment is the *only* punishment available to us here. All of the other punishments that have been proposed over time, such as invisibility, jails, etc., amount to keeping the victim from communicating with anyone here, otherwise known as banishment. I don't consider a one-week banishment as a particularly serious punishment and would not shirk from using it against people like Dr_Jest (at least as he is portrayed) even though he hasn't committed either of the serious offences Kilik names. -------------------------- Message 22 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Tue May 11 17:20:39 1993 PDT From: Grump (#122) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Subject: punishments and other things I'm not sure it's useful to talk about 'punishment'; we react to behavior with actions which are presumed to keep it from happening again. Maybe someone isn't 'punished' by banishing them, but it does keep them from being here, and thus is a preventative measure. Maybe this is just doublespeak -- who cares what you call it? However, whatever you call it, there have been and I think will continue to be lots of cases where 'banishment', even for a short period of time, isn't particularly necessary or effective. In some cases, something simpler will suffice, e.g., @recycling a misued voodoo doll or plasma cannon. In a few cases, far more drastic action is called for. I suppose I'm lobbying for *petition:Arbitration (#50392), because I think there should be both a place for _judgement_ and _responsibility_. Judgement, in the sense that the range of action be flexible, and that someone decides. Responsibility, in the sense that you can tell WHO made the decision (rather than a nameless mob of voters), and that they feel responsibility for making a good decision. -------------------------- Message 23 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Tue May 11 18:35:50 1993 PDT From: Kilik (#2819) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Subject: w00F! Actually, Lambda, I'm not lobbying for lesser punishment either. Jails etc are (to me) reprehensible. I've said it before: either you're a member of the community or you're not. What you can do with your powers is up to you. Step over the line (which I place pretty far up there) and you go, otherwise you face your own music, lie in the bed you made, get stung by the hornets you stirred up etc. -------------------------- Message 24 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Tue May 11 22:17:13 1993 PDT From: Lambda (#50) To: Xiombarg (#37636), *Petition:Banishment (#43827), and *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: "What's the critical difference for you? Xiombarg, you've said that you find the marking proposal objectionable (though I can't remember why from the old discussion of it and you haven't explained your position recently), and yet you've signed Bakunin's banishment petition which some people believe is very similar. Would you be willing to explain what the critical difference is between them that allows you to support one and not the other? -------------------------- Message 25 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Wed May 12 07:53:47 1993 PDT From: Xiombarg (#37636) To: Lambda (#50), *Petition:Banishment (#43827), and *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: um... Actually, I was planning on voting Bakunin's proposal down. But if push comes to shove, Bakunin's proposal is less awkward. -Xi -------------------------- Message 26 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Thu May 13 13:47:44 1993 PDT From: Bakunin (#3553) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) and *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: Some comments on the marking system There are a few aspects of marking which bother me. I'm concerned that it is available to all players: although I would like to see an equitable and fair consensual decision-making mechanism, I think that players should attain a minimum seniority to use the system. My banishment petition stipulates a one-year tenure: I now believe this is too long and should be reduced to six months. The rationale is simple: Any mechanism is prone to abuse, and I believe that serious players (those who have been here six months or longer), who are more emotionally invested in the community, are less likely to abuse the mechanism. As I said in message 4 of *p:banish: I've also witnessed enough fighting in the living room to see that conflict often escalates to the highest level of damaging technology available (spamming, weapons, teleportation), for the most trivial of reasons. Almost invariably it is the newest players, who, perhaps naively, perhaps out of curiosity, are testing the limits of their powers at the slightest provocation. It isn't that my proposal implies that newer players are unable to recognize abuse when it manifests itself: It is that, in my experience, new players often mistake personality conflicts, disagreements, and trivial, easily-thwarted annoyances for the most extreme kind of social attack, and tend to want to respond with the most extreme level of force available to them. Beyond that, it is the proxy system I find most problematic about this proposal. I understand that the reason for proxies is to provide a method for players to elect MOO sheriffs, in whom the authority of many is entrusted -- this supplies, I think, the capacity for "immediate action" mentioned in the petition. From a purely structural point of view, marking and proxy comprise two opposing philosophies: the capacity of an individual player to take action, and a mechanism to relinquish that right, creating more powerful players. The petition system and the two banishment mechanisms arose from the general agitation to provide collective empowerment through individual action; I find it odd that it incorporates within it the means to migrate back to a select group of empowered individuals. These two tendencies are so opposed to each other that I wonder why they aren't separate petitions, one calling for a banishment mechanism, the other the election of MOO sheriffs (I would oppose the latter). The petition system is designed to encompass almost any style of social change: I am unsure why each single petition should endeavor to do the same thing. I do not undestand the economics of marking, either. If I have the ability to attach a single mark to a player, why should I be able to grant my proxy to more than one player? The marking petition states: "Any player can give `proxy' authority over their marks to any number of other players..." Presumably, each of the players to whom I grant my proxy could affix a mark to the same player, thus multiplying what was the single vote that I relinquished. What is the rationale for this augmentation of my single, though displaced, voice? I also believe that the 10% figure of connected players within a week is too high, and that there should be a time-limit on the accrual of marks. If marks accrue over an indefinite period of time, I am concerned that the result will be the banishment of players who are merely annoying. I suggest that something closer to 10% of the total connected players during the interval of the accrual of marks would be more appropriate (assuming that the accrual interval is less than one week). -------------------------- Message 27 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Thu May 13 17:31:52 1993 PDT From: Bakunin (#3553) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) and *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: Re: Some comments about marking I'd like to correct a misperception I had, despite a close reading of the petition. It does call for a one-week expiration period for marks. -------------------------- Message 28 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Sat May 15 21:43:56 1993 PDT From: PatGently (#37637) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) and *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: comparison of banish and marking Bakunin's @banish Lambda's @mark __________________ ___________________ 1-yr residency requirement no res. req. requires 30 players in 48 hrs. requires 10% of week's players, marks time out after a week 1st time: off for 1 wk. just plain off, but 2nd time: 3 weeks regain access if marks 3rd time: forever not maintained player using @banish is prompted @markers are anonymous, for reason. this, names, and time but anyone can see how many are recorded on a note. b/w marks someone has. no marking of person. no recording of cause. can't undo or counteract. can undo after five minutes. whitemarks counteract blackmarks. non-transferable transferable to a proxy or proxies. ____________________________________________________________________________ I think that basically covers the differences. If I've missed anything important, or have anything wrong, please anyone feel free to tell me. Personally, I don't think I like either proposal as it stands. Bakunin has told me he now favors a 6-month residency requirement, which I think is reasonable. I have no strong feelings about the number of players required, time limit, or amount of time off, as I think either proposal does okay on that. Bakunin's system with the notes is rather awkward; I'm not sure how it would work. Perhaps you could elaborate on that for us, Bak? Lambda's system with the marks showing up on the person seems more workable. I like the idea of reasons being recorded, but that might be too bloaty, I dunno. I definitely favor a system that has whitemarks or their equivalent; I think it's a very important safety. I also think proxies are a terrible idea and marks or banish votes should be non-transferable. That should cover it. Gently, Pat. -------------------------- Message 29 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Sun May 16 23:29:47 1993 PDT From: Mickey (#52413) To: PatGently (#37637), *Petition:Banishment (#43827), and *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: Re: comparison of banish and marking Thanks to PatGently for that nice comparison chart. Like Pat, I think whitemarks are nice and proxies are not. I also prefer the idea of having black-marks take an accompanying explanation (as they do in Bak's proposal). I just don't know what to say about the punishment length. I think a one-week timeout is way too short, and it bugs me the same way as I already complained about in my reply to Bak's proposal. I think one week is barely enough time for people to catch their breath after something bad happening, and is ridiculously short as a sentence for anyone who does anything that I would consider prosecuting under this. Perhaps each marking should ask for a proposed punishment and it should toss out the lowest n (10, for example) suggestions, and then take the least of the remaining suggestions. So if everyone wanted someone gone for a year, then it would happen. And if they wanted less time, that would happen. Throwing out the low n would help to reduce the chance of friends trying to soften it. It won't protect the MOO from a gang of bleeding hearts who want to soften sentences across the board, though. -------------------------- Message 30 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Wed Jun 16 19:02:45 1993 PDT From: Mojo (#49846) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Subject: Why I reluctantly sign My feelings: residency requirement: none or 1 month requires: based on % of recently connected players time period: 'marks' time out after one month action: off until marks drop below thereshold whitemarks & blackmarks marks can be undone I definitely perfer a system of changable marks which exist for a specific time over a system of irreversable actions limited to some set period of time. Besides putting an unfair time stress on the victim, a fixed time period seems otherwise unworkable. I like the proxy system though I do think it should be a separate amendment. I can't always be with for them, so I like a way of placing the power of my support into the hands of trusted friends. Though I don't care for the specifics of this petition I will sign it because _something_ is needed. (I've had a the dubious pleasure of meeting Dr_Jest.) I hope that Lambda (or someone) soon petitions for something better. -Mojo -------------------------- Message 31 on *Petition:Banishment (#43827): Date: Tue Dec 7 08:53:12 1993 PST From: Puff (#1449) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) Subject: "Vote Yes on @ban/@witness (#55917) My ballot, #55917, @ban/@witness, is hours away from closing. I'd like to encourage players on this list to "vote yes on #55917". @ban/@witness try to accomplish what this petition aims for, in a less permanent, less unilateral manner. Think if it as the stages before banishment, if banishment passes. I've noticed some players wishing for a less severe punishments, while others question the concept of punishment less than banishment, "either you're a member of the community, or you're not." @ban/@witness (#55917) achieves both of these ideals, by allowing individual members of the community to @ban abusive players from all of their rooms easily, and by allowing the use of @witness to record abusive acts and publish them in a verifiable form to convince others to join in ostrascizing the abusive player. This approach aims to create a new paradigm of social justice, by empowering the players - all of the players - to exercise the rights they already have (to exclude somebody from their territory) rather than giving those rights to some governing body, enforcement organization, or special class. Please "vote yes on #55917" without delay. Puff --------------------------