On 6/26/20 9:11 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >>> On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: >>>> The below CFJ is 3851. I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. >>>> >>>> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851 >>>> >>>> =============================== CFJ 3851 =============================== >>>> >>>> R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in >>>> evidence. >>>> >>>> ========================================================================== >>>> Caller: G. >>>> Barred: R. Lee >>>> >>>> Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >>>> >>>> ========================================================================== >>>> >>>> History: >>>> >>>> Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 02:49:52 >>>> Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: [now] >>>> >>>> ========================================================================== >>> First, let's look at the common language definition of "attempt", one of >>> which is "[To] make an effort to achieve or complete".[0] By this >>> definition, it seems clear that, since an intent is an effort to >>> complete the intended action, R. Lee did attempt to perform a forbidden >>> action; however, we should also look to the use of "attempt" as a term >>> of art in jurisprudence. Here, we find possibly conflicting definitions: >>> "Any act that is more than merely preparatory to the intended commission >>> of a crime"[1] and "the crime of having the intent to commit and taking >>> action in an effort to commit a crime that fails or is prevented".[2] >>> The second of these is clearly fulfilled as R. Lee stated eir intent >>> publicly and took action towards the commission of the crime, but the >>> first rests upon whether the intent was "merely preparatory". Given that >>> the statement of intent was a necessary condition for the later >>> commission of the crime and could not have reasonably served any other >>> purpose, I find that the intent was more than merely preparatory. Given >>> that the three definitions are agreeable with respect to the >>> circumstances, we need not further analyze which is best to use. As a >>> result, I assign a judgment of TRUE to CFJ 3851. >>> >> >> Actuallly.... I forgot about this, but I thought of something else here. >> >> I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep" >> would ossify agora. However, this would remove the explicit definition of >> contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law" >> agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of all >> parties. >> >> And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689. >> >> And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little >> about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed >> forum). Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't >> explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew what >> "public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining proof >> of consent, etc. Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that found >> that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed. >> >> Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora, >> that's fine too... >> >> -G. > > I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with > just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest > out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. > > It doesn't sound that silly for Agora to still work with just the > power-4 rules plus Meeps. The rules sort of say "There are fora; you > say your actions over the fora; proposals change the gamestate; here's > an example "fountain" rule some people made; now go have fun!" > > Given the absence of other guidance, R1698 might be interpreted as > implying that the players can adopt proposals, and that they take > effect unless they would ossify Agora. > > - Falsifian >
There does seem to be an argument to be made here, but if that's the case I'm not sure what effect R1698 would have. -- ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
