I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an Officer report. An Officer report SHALL be published weekly", a robot may interpret such a provision as imposing criminal liability on the report itself, but any English-speaking person would realise that the ADoP is liable for such a breach. Just because any player can activate this provision, no difference applies. After all, it is still "exact", as non-player persons could not be held liable for breaching this rule as they can for some rules.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:03 PM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > That may make some intuitive sense, but I’m not sure which provision(s) of > the rules you think I’ve either overlooked or misinterpreted, and what your > interpretation of those provisions is. I think if we ground the analysis in > the text of the Rules then there will be more clarity about why we may > disagree. > > > On Jun 3, 2019, at 9:57 PM, Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The fact that any player CAN perform The Ritual and the fact that someone > > SHALL do so do not logically or by common sense entail the fact that the > > responsibility to do so falls on any player. Until we know exactly who > > SHALL do so, punishing anyone is premature. Even assuming that the action > > isn’t required to perform itself, that still doesn’t tell us who exactly > > SHALL do it. > > > > -Aris > > > >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:45 PM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> I think that this decision is corrrect as a matter of text. The rules > >> should be amended to give one player the responsibility, and each player > >> the ability for the ritual. But as the rules stand, "failing to perform > >> [the ritual] violates" the rules and "any player CAN perform the > ritual". I > >> think this decision provides the best reading of the text at issue. It > also > >> accords with Agoran practice in that abstract actions are usually not > >> required to perform themselves. > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 9:07 AM Aris Merchant < > >> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> I object. The rule says that The Ritual SHALL be performed; it doesn't > >>> specify who shall do the performing. In the absence of such a > >>> specification, holding any individual player responsible is clearly > >>> unreasonable, since their individual responsibility to perform The > Ritual > >>> was never explicitly stated. > >>> > >>> -Aris > >>> > >>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 12:59 PM D Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Below is a proto-decision on the fingers pointed by Falsifian > regarding > >>>> the Ritual; comments welcome. > >>>> > >>>> * * * > >>>> > >>>> The key question seems to be whether a fine for failure to perform the > >>>> Ritual CAN be imposed on players consistently with Rule 2531. Under > >> Rule > >>>> 2531, among other things, a fine is INEFFECTIVE if > >>>> > >>>>> (2) it attempts to levy a fine on a person for an action or inaction > >>>> which e (more likely than not) did not commit; [or] > >>>>> > >>>>> (3) it attempts to levy a fine for an action or inaction which is not > >>>> prohibited by the rules . . . . > >>>> > >>>> In this case, I think a fine MUST be imposed because those > requirements > >>>> (and the other requirements) are satisfied by the players’ failure to > >>>> perform the Ritual. > >>>> > >>>> Under Rule 2596 (the Ritual), “[a]ny player CAN perform the Ritual by > >>>> paying a fee of 7 coins,” and “[t]he Ritual MUST be performed at least > >>> once > >>>> in every Agoran week.” Under Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?), “MUST” means > >>> that > >>>> “[f]ailing to perform the described action violates the rule in > >>> question.” > >>>> > >>>> Last week, the “described action” (the Ritual) was not “performed.” > >> That > >>>> violation came to pass because each player declined to perform the > >> Ritual > >>>> last week. In my view, because “failing to perform the [Ritual]” at > >>> least > >>>> once last week “violates the rule in question,” that means that any > >>> player > >>>> or entity capable of performing the Ritual violated the Rule through > >> eir > >>>> “inaction” when it turned out that the Ritual was not performed on > >> time. > >>>> Falsifian pointed eir finger at players each of whom could have > >> performed > >>>> the Ritual. As a result, each such player violated the Rule. > >>>> > >>>> Ais523 suggests that the Ritual itself may have violated the Rule. I > >>>> think I disagree. In my view, the Ritual is the action required to be > >>>> performed; it is not an entity that violates the Rule when it is not > >>>> performed. Imagine the Rule instead said, “any player CAN hop on one > >>> foot” > >>>> and “a hopping upon one foot MUST be performed at least once in every > >>>> Agoran week.” We wouldn’t say that the rule is violated by the > >> “hopping > >>>> upon one foot,” because that’s an action not an entity. Same with the > >>>> Ritual. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 02:38 +0000, James Cook wrote: > >>>>>> I Point my Finger at every player, in the following order: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> omd, Aris, Gaelan, G., Cuddle Beam, Trigon, Murphy, ATMunn, twg, > >>>>>> D. Margaux, Jacob Arduino, Falsifian, Bernie, Rance, o, Jason Cobb, > >>>>>> Walker, PSS, Corona, V.J. Rada, L, Hālian, Tarhalindur, Telnaior, > >>>>>> Baron von Vaderham > >>>>>> > >>>>>> for failing to perform The Ritual in the previous Agoran week. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Explanation for how each player P violated the rules: > >>>>>> * Rule 2596 required The Ritual to be performed. > >>>>>> * P had a method available to perform The Ritual. Therefore P is > >>>>>> responsible if The Ritual was not performed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> (I had honestly intended to perform it at the last minute once again > >>>>>> this week, but forgot. I intended to do this because I try to follow > >>>>>> the rules. Though, honestly, I'm happy that we finally missed a week > >>>>>> so that we get to see what happens.) > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> From V.J. Rada > >> > -- >From V.J. Rada
