status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3730 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 3730 =============================== If no player activates Rule 2596 'The Ritual' in a certain week, all players who are players that week have violated the rule, which provides that (1) "Any player CAN perform The Ritual" and (2) "The Ritual MUST be performed at least once in every Agoran week. ========================================================================== Caller: V.J. Rada Judge: D. Margaux Judgement: FALSE ========================================================================== History: Called by V.J. Rada: 06 Jun 2019 07:49:19 Assigned to D. Margaux: 12 Jun 2019 05:14:18 Judged FALSE by D. Margaux: 12 Jun 2019 14:19:47 ========================================================================== Caller's Arguments: I suspect that the text is not clear and therefore the four-part test must be applied. I believe it is in the best interest of the game to impose criminal liability for the violation of the Rules as much as possible. I also believe that it is perfectly reasonable as a matter of text to impose criminal liability on "any player" who by failing to act in "performing the ritual" (despite being able to do so) leads to a violation of the command that "the ritual must be performed". I note that we don't apply American law here, just like we don't apply Klingon law, unless it is specifically stated in the rules. Although American law principles may be applied as a part of the four part test, American law is of course occasionally atextual common law (or atextual statutory interpretation). Agora specifically provides that the text controls, precluding a test of "wrongness" in deciding whether something is a criminal violation in the first place, appearing nowhere in the text.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge's Arguments: 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.” During one particular Agoran week, the “described action” (the Ritual) was not “performed,” and a player pointed eir finger at all other active players for allegedly violating the rules by their failure to perform the Ritual. The question is whether the Cold Hand of Justice CAN (and MUST) be imposed on those players consistent with Rule 2531 (Referee Accountability). Under Rule 2531, a fine CANNOT Be imposed if (among other things): > (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 my capacity as Referee, I offered a proto-decision on this issue.[1] At that time, my opinion was that the players' "inaction" caused a rule violation, and, as a result, the CHoJ could be imposed consistent with Rule 2531(2) and (3). I now believe that reasoning is wrong. Each players' "inaction" was a necessary (but not sufficient) cause of a violation of the rules. But the Rules do not prohibit *causing* a violation of the Rules. Indeed, there are a great many actions that are necessary causes for any particular rule violation. For example, G.'s action proposing the adoption of The Ritual rule was a necessary cause of the violation of that Rule. It would be contrary to the best interests of the game for causation of a rule violation to be considered itself a violation of the rules.[2] Indeed, the Rules expressly prohibit a player from causing a zombie to violate the rules (Masterminding), and that demonstrates that the Rules can differentiate between violating a rule and causing a violation of a rule. In sum, although in this instance the individual and collective "inaction" of the players did *cause* a rule violation, that inaction was not itself directly prohibited by the Rules. As a result, under Rule 2531(3), the CHoJ CAN'T and MUSTN'T be imposed, because doing so would "attempt[] to levy a fine for an . . . inaction which is not prohibited by the rules." Judged FALSE. ==========================================================================