ptdw wrote:
Thanks Bamaswitch! There's some good ones in there (though some may be hard to verify). I've been thinking recently about a self-defined punishment, that could be tailored to your own situation and available toys...
I know some would argue that we'd just be giving people a punishment that they want, but I don't necessarily agree. A lot of times I'd be willing to agree to an unpleasant punishment at first (as a dare/forfeit, for example) but lose interest later or never get up the nerve to follow though. If a defendant submitted a well-defined punishment, evidence, and means of verification, it may encourage more to participate. We could always delete the silly ones. Plus, it would allow people to use any "special equipment" that they may have. Any interest in that? Or do you guys think it would be abused?
I think a self defined could work. However, I do believe some would abuse it but if it turned into too large of a problem you could disable it again.
A few other suggestions -
1. The punishment should fit the crime but what if the judge doesn't see it that way? I'd love to see some randomness to the punishments. The odds may be that you get a certain punishment but the judicial system is known for being inconsistent and you might just get something totally unfitting. The problem with this is that items on hand would still need to be taken into account. Or maybe the judge just has a bad day and doesn't care what your limits and toys are.
It is a punishment!
2. Those that fail are automatically shown on the start screen like a news flash with the last 3 or 4 being rotated out. Or possibly kept up for a certain amount of time.
3. After a certain duration, new collateral is required. This would put extra effort into the moderation however.
_________________
Just here for laughs ... and grimaces.