On Jul 26, 2008, at 4:42 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
========================= Criminal Case 2081
=========================
Goethe breached rule 2149 by claiming to dance in eir message
with message-id
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
======================================================================
==
The Defendant's actions posted in the message in question are, under
Agoran practice, sufficient evidence of eir taking the action in
question. Even though the musical selection claimed by the Defendant
would inspire a sort of dancing that may be visually similar to an
epileptic seizure, without any evidence submitted by the Caller in
opposition to the Defendant's dancing I rule INNOCENT.
========================= Criminal Case 2082
=========================
ehird breached rule 2149 by claiming to kill Goethe in eir
message with message-id
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
======================================================================
==
The action in question clearly could not have been taken through
email. As the Defendant has not attempted to eliminate the subject,
the attempted action was false. I therefore rule GUILTY.
I sentence ehird as the ninny to APOLOGY -- yielding to Goethe the
selection of the words to include in this apology -- and sternly warn
the ninny: Do not threaten players again, for the next time the
judge should strongly consider a sentence of exile.
========================= Criminal Case 2083
=========================
root breached rule 2149 by claiming that the precedent from CFJ
1738 is that speech acts carry truth values
======================================================================
==
As the Defendant was the Trial Judge in CFJ 1738, I defer to eir
analysis of what eir precedent said. I find nothing in the arguments
for that CFJ to contradict the Defendant's statement. I rule INNOCENT.
Evidence 1: root's message, http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/
mailman/private/agora-business/2008-July/012497.html
I support this. The precedent from CFJ 1738 is that speech acts do
carry truth values. Additionally, I know of no precedent stating what
Taral claims.
Evidence 2: CFJ 1738's argument by H. Caller Zefram, concurred with
by H. Trial Judge root
R101 and R478 are not explicit on what constitutes "participation" in
the fora. Applying common sense, the general purpose of a forum is for
people to send information and ideas to each other, which is naturally
done by sending messages that the author believes are true. The public
forum, specifically, has the major purpose of sending information, and
is also the place for many game actions which are taken by means of a
statement saying that the action is being taken.
R2149's prohibition obviously impacts the ordinary way to disseminate
information in a forum. It will no doubt be argued by some that a
knave could disseminate information by means of false statements, if it
is understood that e habitually does so, but this would be a confusing
arrangement and seems an unreasonable imposition on a player. It's also
incompatible with the various situations where the rules require a
player
to publish certain information. I also note in passing that if a player
were classed as a FOOL, being both knight and knave, e would be denied
this possible escape.
The situation for game actions that are taken by announcement is worse.
Rules that provide for action by announcement generally will trigger on
statements such as "I hereby vote FOR proposal 5678.". If the attempt
at action is successful then the statement is true, and if the actor
believed that the action would be successful then e believed that the
statement would be true. There is no provision whereby a person can
take such actions by means of a false statement. A statement such as "I
do not hereby vote FOR proposal 5678." would not succeed in performing
an action, because it does not claim to perform an action, and would
be a true statement of fact. Prohibiting a player from posting true
statements thus denies em the right to take many game actions, which is
a major aspect of participation in the public forum.
R2149 thus generally prohibits a knave from participating in the public
forum in any reasonable manner, and specifically prohibits em from those
actions that are the main purpose of the public forum. This is clearly
at odds with eir R101 right.
========================= Criminal Case 2084
=========================
comex breached rule 2149 by sending a message with message-id
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
which e did not tell the truth (because e did not say anything)
======================================================================
==
The message in question is in fact a null message, with no speech
(public or otherwise) involved. In my understanding, a null
statement does not have a meaningful truth valuation. I judge
SLIPPERY, and recommend to the Defendant that e not press eir luck by
attempting this action again.
========================= Criminal Case 2085
=========================
comex breached rule 2149 by thinking up statements that will be
public although they are not true before e has sent them
======================================================================
==
This case will take a little longer. I have no ruling at this time.
-----
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
Trial Judge OscarMeyr
