========================= Criminal Case 2016 =========================
Quazie violated rule 2149 by publicly claiming in message
Echidna and Typhon are coauthors (or a coauthor) of the proposal
that e submitted in that message.
Called by Zefram: 17 Jun 2008 21:58:27 GMT
Defendant Quazie informed: 18 Jun 2008 06:28:00 GMT
Pre-trial phase ended: 18 Jun 2008 07:27:30 GMT
Assigned to Machiavelli: 18 Jun 2008 07:54:41 GMT
Machiavelli recused: 01 Jul 2008 21:42:42 GMT
Assigned to Taral: 01 Jul 2008 21:55:51 GMT
Judged UNIMPUGNED by Taral: 01 Jul 2008 22:32:00 GMT
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
Rule 106/12 (Power=3)
A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is
distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its
author as being its co-author at the time of submission.
There is no regulation of how non-persons become co-authors of proposals.
Gratuitous Arguments by Quazie:
First note that I have always attempted to be a (mostly) upstanding
member of this nomic community and after being a member of Agora on an
on and off basis for a number of years I have never had a criminal
case filed against me until this one.
For the purpose of the aforementioned proposal, I wanted to give
attribution to the creator of each individual monster, in most cases
this was the author of the work in which the monster was first noted,
perhaps the writer of the movie that the monster first appeared in.
For the Hydra, I could find no such person, and thus decided that no
better attribution could be given then to the parents of the Hydra
itself, Echidna and Typhon. Are they Persons? No. Could I have
written the proposal without them? Also No. Without the Hydra's
parents, the Hydra could never have existed. If any of your parents
hadn't ever existed, then you would not exist either, and thus not be
able to be playing this game of agora. I submit to you that any
entity's creator is a co-author to any proposal that involves said
entity, whether the entity be a rule, or a monster, for with out that
creator the entity could never have existed.
Furthermore, R106 only describes how people may be co-authors. It
does not describe how non-persons can become co-authors, and as a
result it (potentially) does not regulate the co-authorability of
Also, if I am found INNOCENT I would implore Zefram to re-instate the
requested co-authorship of all persons/humans/mythological beings
associated with the aforementioned proposal.
Judge Taral's Arguments:
Actions have been previously separated from statements for the
purposes of rule 2149. The phrase "X is a coauthor", based upon the
phrasing of rule 106, is more of an action than a statement. These
"designations", as I call them, serve to activate specific rules in
the same way as an action. In this case, the designation of a
co-author serves to activate rule 106's "unambigiously identified"
requirement. As a designation, it is not punishable as a false public
statement, whether or not it is effective. I judge UNIMPUGNED.