On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3250
>
> ========================= Criminal Case 3250 =========================
>
> ais523 violated the rule "The Ambassador-At-Large" (which I
> haven't numbered yet) by using a power granted to Agora's
> ambassadors other than as allowed by the rules.
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Caller: omd
> Barred: ais523
>
> Judge: FKA441344
> Judgement:
>
> ========================================================================
>
> History:
>
> Called by omd: 09 Jul 2012 23:31:55 GMT
> Defendant ais523 informed: 09 Jul 2012 23:31:55 GMT
> Assigned to FKA441344: (as of this message)
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> Regardless of whether e "attempt[ed] to use" the power, e did "use"
> it; and regardless of whether e was allowed to take actions by sending
> that message, e was not allowed to use a power by sending it.
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Caller's Evidence:
>
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 5:14 PM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> I assume Ambassador-At-Large.
>>
>> In other news, I hereby announce a new Nomic:
>
> [16:15:17] <ais523> I have other counterarguments too, but want to
> keep them secret because they're both 100% going to work, and easily
> workaroundable on your part ;)
>
> Bring it on :)
>
> I announce, for the record, that the Counter is 2, as one of Agora's
> ambassadors has posted a message to agora-business clearly indicating
> attempts to perform actions by announcement (I interpret "an attempt"
> as "at least one attempt"):
>
>> I cash this Campaign Speech.
>
>> Oh, and I vote for scshunt in the Promotor election.
>
> A foreign nomic may grant certain powers (in the ordinary-language
> sense) and privileges to Agora's ambassadors. It is ILLEGAL to use or
> attempt to use such powers or privileges except as allowed by the
> rules of Agora. The Ambassador-At-Large CAN and MAY, with Agoran
> Consent, authorize emself to use such powers or priviliges in a
> specified way, in a specified nomic, in a specified timeframe of
> length not exceeding two weeks. If a foreign nomic allows for Agora
> to take actions in it, the ambassador CAN and MAY, with Agoran
> consent, take a specified action or series of actions in it on
> behalf of Agora, provided that the nomic is Protected, Friendly, or
> Neutral.
>
> Nomic 1
>
> 1. This is the ruleset for Nomic 1. omd is the only player of Nomic
> 1, and can amend these rules arbitrarily by posting a message with the
> new ruleset to agora-business.
>
> 2. The Counter is: 2. Agora's ambassadors have the power to amend
> this rule to increment the Counter by 1 by posting a message to
> agora-business indicating an attempt to perform any Agoran action by
> announcement.
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
>
> - No, I haven't accidentally amended the ruleset of Nomic 1 to the
> text of my next message; "posting a message with the new ruleset"
> doesn't mean "posting a message (whose text is the new ruleset)"; it
> has to be labeled as a ruleset.
>
> - I haven't violated ais523's right to participate in the fora; e has
> the right to talk to people, not send specially formatted messages to
> perform game actions (except for calling a CFJ and whatever else is
> allowed by R101).
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Defendant ais523's Arguments:
>
> I have several defences to this.
>
> First, even if this worked, both rule 478 and rule 101(v) give me the
> right to participate in the fora. So there's a higher-power rule
> allowing me to make posts to the fora. Prohibiting people from
> performing actions via posting to a-b altogether is not allowing the
> fora to be participated in in their intended manner; see CFJs 1738,
> 1768. omd's preemptive counterargument is thus completely at odds with
> the case law; being allowed to post anything so long as it's a lie is a
> similar restriction as being allowed to post anything so long as it
> isn't an action.
>
> Second, no Agoran rule gives this nomic the power to define the meanings
> of my posts. There's an ISIDTID problem here; I'm not using the powers
> of the foreign nomic, I'm posting to Agora. The foreign nomic may be
> attempting to reinterpret the posts, but that's not Agora's problem. The
> foreign nomic likewise doesn't have enough power to interfere with the
> workings of the (currently unnumbered) new rule that prohibits players
> from using the powers or privileges of a foreign nomic (not being a rule
> or proposal).
>
> Third, the foreign nomic's ruleset has been incorrectly quoted. Nomic
> 1's old ruleset triggers both ambassador actions, and ruleset
> amendments, merely on messages to a-b. If /any/ message taking an action
> of mine is enough to trigger the counter increase, then /any/ message
> containing anything that could be interpreted as a ruleset (i.e. any
> message at all, because there is no reason why rulesets of foreign
> nomics should be constrained to have any particular format or even make
> any sense), and so omd accidentally amended the ruleset to "I vote for
> you." (which can even be reasonably interpreted as a rule!).
>
> omd wrote:
>> Preemptive counter-arguments based on IRC discussion:
>>
>> - No, I haven't accidentally amended the ruleset of Nomic 1 to the
>> text of my next message; "posting a message with the new ruleset"
>> doesn't mean "posting a message (whose text is the new ruleset)"; it
>> has to be labeled as a ruleset.
> If your rulesets have to be labelled as rulesets, then my counter
> increases have to be labelled as counter increases. You used pretty much
> the same wording in both cases.
>
> Fourth, I am required in general to take Agoran actions via various
> rules (e.g. rule 2158, which has higher power than the unnumbered rule
> that omd is trying to prosecute me under). Thus, rule 1504(e) is not
> satisfied.
>
> Fifth, we have no indication as yet as to how literal-minded or
> spirit-of-the-rule-minded Nomic 1 is. Not only does this make the whole
> thing too ambiguous to trigger Agoran rules, but with a sufficiently
> literal-minded view (as might have historically existed in, say, B
> Nomic), there are several things wrong with it (e.g. a reference to
> "Agora's ambassadors" may have no referent unless there are at least two
> ambassadors). Likewise, we don't know if the ruleset has any force at
> all, or whether it means the opposite of what it says, or if it has
> secret rules, etc..
>
> Sixth, as these arguments will show, I believe that I have not violated
> the unnumbered rule in question; I believed this at the time, also. I
> claim that my belief was reasonable, and thus rule 1504(d) is not
> satisfied either.
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:00 PM, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Arguments:
>>
>> I have several defences to this.
>>
>> First, even if this worked, both rule 478 and rule 101(v) give me the
>> right to participate in the fora. So there's a higher-power rule
>> allowing me to make posts to the fora. Prohibiting people from
>> performing actions via posting to a-b altogether is not allowing the
>> fora to be participated in in their intended manner; see CFJs 1738,
>> 1768.
>
> If that's true, then deregistering someone violates their right to
> participate in the fora, since it disallows the vast majority of game
> actions.
>
>> Second, no Agoran rule gives this nomic the power to define the meanings
>> of my posts. There's an ISIDTID problem here; I'm not using the powers
>> of the foreign nomic, I'm posting to Agora.
>
> "Using" a power in a foreign nomic is not defined except by the
> ruleset of the nomic itself. If this were BlogNomic, you could use a
> power by editing the GNDT; here, you can use a power by sending an
> unrelated message to agora-business.
>
>> Third, the foreign nomic's ruleset has been incorrectly quoted. Nomic
>> 1's old ruleset triggers both ambassador actions, and ruleset
>> amendments, merely on messages to a-b. If /any/ message taking an action
>> of mine is enough to trigger the counter increase, then /any/ message
>> containing anything that could be interpreted as a ruleset (i.e. any
>> message at all, because there is no reason why rulesets of foreign
>> nomics should be constrained to have any particular format or even make
>> any sense), and so omd accidentally amended the ruleset to "I vote for
>> you." (which can even be reasonably interpreted as a rule!).
>
> "an attempt to perform any Agoran action" is much more general than
> "posting a message with the new ruleset". In any 'normal' nomic, you
> would not interpret a rule that says "posting a message with the new
> ruleset" as meaning "posting any message (the message's text is the
> new ruleset)", it's pathological; no reason to do so here, since there
> is no reasonable alternate interpretation of rule 2.
>
>> If your rulesets have to be labelled as rulesets, then my counter
>> increases have to be labelled as counter increases. You used pretty much
>> the same wording in both cases.
>
> not really.
>
>> Fourth, I am required in general to take Agoran actions via various
>> rules (e.g. rule 2158, which has higher power than the unnumbered rule
>> that omd is trying to prosecute me under). Thus, rule 1504(e) is not
>> satisfied.
>
> Not these particular actions.
>
>> Fifth, we have no indication as yet as to how literal-minded or
>> spirit-of-the-rule-minded Nomic 1 is. Not only does this make the whole
>> thing too ambiguous to trigger Agoran rules, but with a sufficiently
>> literal-minded view (as might have historically existed in, say, B
>> Nomic), there are several things wrong with it (e.g. a reference to
>> "Agora's ambassadors" may have no referent unless there are at least two
>> ambassadors). Likewise, we don't know if the ruleset has any force at
>> all, or whether it means the opposite of what it says, or if it has
>> secret rules, etc..
>
> Note that if true (seems like a massive exaggeration of the ambiguity
> to me), this doesn't mean you didn't violate the rule, since the rule
> in question invokes the foreign nomic's view of things without passing
> through any standards for unambiguity; it may mean that you're NOT
> GUILTY because it's ambiguous whether you violated the rule.
>
>> Sixth, as these arguments will show, I believe that I have not violated
>> the unnumbered rule in question; I believed this at the time, also. I
>> claim that my belief was reasonable, and thus rule 1504(d) is not
>> satisfied either.
>
> Rule 1504(d) hasn't been changed yet! You certainly *could* have
> reasonably believed that it was illegal.
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Defendant ais523's Arguments:
>
> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 17:13 -0700, omd wrote:
>> If that's true, then deregistering someone violates their right to
>> participate in the fora, since it disallows the vast majority of game
>> actions.
> Nonplayers don't have a right of participation in the fora.
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
>
> First, there's precedent (somewhere) on R1504(e) along the lines of
> "officers generally have the right to hold office; if it's not
> reasonably possible to avoid a violation while holding or exercising
> some office, then it's unreasonable to demand that the holder resign in
> order to avoid it". (I'm not sure whether it covers becoming the
> holder of such an office, or deputising for such an office.) Even if
> GUILTY is appropriate, there's a good argument for DISCHARGE (or at
> least a lenient sentence) in light of a single player obstructing
> officers by setting up a fairly trivial case.
>
> Second, in general, attempting to perform an Agoran action by
> announcement is not explicitly prohibited or regulated, thus by R101(i)
> persons have the right to so attempt. Specific forms are ILLEGAL (e.g.
> Endorsing Forgery), but then R101(vi) applies.
>
> Third, just because an ambassador "has the power" to do X by doing Y
> doesn't automatically mean that e exercises that power every time e
> does Y. This clause may be interpreted to the effect that e only
> exercises it when e says so, or at least that e has the power to avoid
> exercising it by saying so.
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
>
> Even though Agora's ambassadors can unambiguously avoid this trap by
> acting via a-o or the backup lists, this may still violate the R101(v)
> right of participation in "the fora"; the precedent interpreting
> "participation" as "participation in the generally-intended fashion"
> may extend to the game custom that a-b is generally intended to be
> used (unless you're publishing a report, or it's stopped working).
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
>
> omd wrote:
>
>> If that's true, then deregistering someone violates their right to
>> participate in the fora, since it disallows the vast majority of game
>> actions.
>
> Those actions are intended to be disallowed for non-players.
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
>
> I intend these actions to be disallowed for ais523.
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
>
> More specifically, those actions are generally and (usually)
> uncontroversially intended to be disallowed for non-players.
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3251
>
> ========================= Criminal Case 3251 =========================
>
> omd violated rule 478 by prohibiting me from participating in
> all the fora.
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Caller: ais523
> Barred: omd
>
> Judge: FKA441344
> Judgement:
>
> ========================================================================
>
> History:
>
> Called by ais523: 10 Jul 2012 00:00:48 GMT
> Defendant omd informed: 10 Jul 2012 00:00:48 GMT
> Assigned to FKA441344: (as of this message)
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> I don't think his attempt to
> prohibit me works; but if it /does/, it's illegal; rule 478 specifically
> forbids prohibiting players from participating in the fora. (And CFJ
> 1738 found that this sort of restriction counts as a prohibition on
> participating.)
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Defendant omd's Arguments:
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:00 PM, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Arguments:
>>
>> I have several defences to this.
>>
>> First, even if this worked, both rule 478 and rule 101(v) give me the
>> right to participate in the fora. So there's a higher-power rule
>> allowing me to make posts to the fora. Prohibiting people from
>> performing actions via posting to a-b altogether is not allowing the
>> fora to be participated in in their intended manner; see CFJs 1738,
>> 1768.
>
> If that's true, then deregistering someone violates their right to
> participate in the fora, since it disallows the vast majority of game
> actions.
>
> ========================================================================
CFJ 3250: NOT GUILTY. Rule 101 gives ais523 the right to use the fora,
and the judge's arguments from case 1768 state
{
[...]
I find that rule 101's right of participation in the fora covers at
least those forms of participation that constitute the ordinary way
to achieve the purposes of the fora. [...]
}.
Performing game actions via agora-business is included in this.
CFJ 3251: NOT GUILTY. ais523 was not prohibited from participating in the fora.
