View Flat HTML
View Metadata
Search Post
Tiger is only ten, and the legal system holds that people of age ten are assumed to be children unless they explicitly petition otherwise, and also that such children are not fully responsible for their actions, and most kinds of non-catastrophic "mistake" ought not be held against any adults they might later grow up to be.
Introduction to a Medianworld
+ Show First Post
Implements-Itself
Most Evalites would be very understanding if there's anything from your childhood you want to have sealed, at this point.
Raise-Hand-First
There's still no way that's how it works though.
The only thing stopping Toffee testifying is that he shot himself, but you said that he can still testify against people if the person who shot him gives permission. So when he claims maturity to get out of jail they can just ask him, as an adolescent, if he's willing to give himself permission to turn in his friends, and if he doesn’t they can punish him as an adolescent for not un-murdering himself, and he goes back to jail.
Raise-Hand-First
No, silly. He can't give himself permission when he's older in the future if he already shot himself in the past.
Raise-Hand-First
This story makes no sense for like a dozen different reasons, and almost all of them are the Harms Commission's fault.
Twirls-Moustache
He's pretty much gotten to the end, now. He'll take off his moustache.
Off-Lesson-Plan
Well then, you all seem to think I've made some mistakes in how a Harms Commission should behave.
Clearly, you can do it better. Who thinks they can figure out the rest of how the rules need to be structured, if we don't want to end up causing even more problems than we solve?
Mid-Childhood-Crisis
Since the show's over, Tiger will return to her seat, and join in the discussion.
Raise-Hand-First
You definitely need to have a plan that would work without the Harms Commission making anything easier for you, and you have to convince them you really would go through with it, above some probability probably.
And if they're not convinced enough, you've got no choice but to prove them wrong by setting off the nuke in real life?
Raise-Hand-First
It'd have to be a cost-benefit analysis. They'd weigh up the cost of letting you do a harm-reduction agreement where you might not have done the crime without it, versus the damage of what would happen otherwise if you're not bluffing.
The point of still making you do most of it is because it's some evidence you really would do it? Or because it creates a realistic chance of the guard stopping you, which you’d have to believe is small if you really would have gone through with it otherwise?
And you can have plans that would kill witnesses to stop them testifying, but it shouldn't be allowed to plan to kill your own allies.
Off-Lesson-Plan
Why not? You could kill your own allies to stop them testifying in real life.
Raise-Hand-First
No you couldn't. They could all set up hidden journals that would be found if they died, that reveal everyone else in the conspiracy, and if they don't want to get betrayed they'd obviously choose to do that, so you'd expect killing your allies gets your whole plan leaked in retaliation.
Raise-Hand-First
But the government could just guarantee that'd never happen by telling everyone in advance that they could do that, which they'd want to do anyway since it disadvantages criminals.
Raise-Hand-First
No, it advantages criminals to know that, since then they know they can't easily kill each other and can coordinate better, so the government wouldn’t want to tell them about it.
Twirls-Moustache
Ha! If the government doesn't want it done, then I'll do it. Hey kids! You can get better coordination in all your criminal conspiracies by leaving dead-man's switches set to leak all your co-conspirators' names in the event that any of them betray you!
Raise-Hand-First
Then you definitely shouldn't be allowed to make plans that involve killing your co-conspirators to stop them testifying. It wouldn't ever work.
Indirectly-Save-World
If it wouldn't ever work, why should we need to stop bad guys doing it? They can just do the plan and then it fails and then they get caught.
Raise-Hand-First
No because it does work but only if they're not really getting killed. They're only pretend-dying, so they can just negotiate beforehand to split up the loot afterwards.
Indirectly-Save-World
So something like, if you betray one of your allies by pretending to kill them, you're not later allowed to give them any of the loot? And because they can't get the loot later it'll never be in their interests, so they'll always choose to set up a dead-man's switch to betray you back?
What happens if they just agree to that, and then secretly give them a share of the loot later anyway? They are criminals, after all.
Raise-Hand-First
The Harms Commission knows who they are and is watching, even if the guard haven't solved it yet.
They can dob them in if they do something against the Harms Commission rules, even if they aren’t allowed to dob them in about anything else.
Indirectly-Save-World
We're allowed to get people arrested for stuff now? But only for things where they break their agreements with us? This is getting pretty confusing, I think I need a diagram.