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.