Index ← 2228 CFJ 2229 2230 → text
=========================  Criminal Case 2229  =========================

    Goethe violated rule 2173 by neither informing the Notary of the
    text and set of parties of UNDEAD, nor understanding and carefully
    weighing the full implications of failing to do so.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 ais523
Barred:                                 G.

Judge:                                  OscarMeyr
Judgement:                              INNOCENT

========================================================================

History:

Called by ais523:                       14 Oct 2008 14:25:53 GMT
Defendant G. informed:                  16 Oct 2008 05:02:46 GMT
Pre-trial phase ended:                  16 Oct 2008 06:37:59 GMT
Assigned to OscarMeyr:                  16 Oct 2008 16:09:22 GMT
Judged INNOCENT by OscarMeyr:           21 Oct 2008 17:32:30 GMT

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

[intent to initiate]

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by Taral:

[support to initiate]

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

[support to initiate]

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by OscarMeyr:

At least one version of the UNDEAD agreement
predates the MMI phrasing of R2173.  As such, the MMI requirement of
SHOULD did not exist at that time.  I urge the Court to aquit the
Defendant.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

Well in that case, the Notary should have been
informed when the rules changed such that they should have been
informed.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

I state for the record that while I can neither confirm nor deny the
existence or state of the contract in question, any alleged member or
individual knowledgeable about the alleged contents of such a contract
whose existence I neither confirm nor deny would by the very nature
of the unconfirmed contract fully understand and carefully weigh the
consequences of informing (or not informing) any person (including any
official person) or indeed would making any statement (such as this
one) regarding the nature, text, or alleged members of any such
agreement, which I neither confirm nor deny exists.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

Rule 2173 says:
{{{
      The parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the Notary
      informed of its text and set of parties.
}}}

First, UNDEAD is definitely not a public contract. (If it were, the
Notary would be tracking it; I'm the notary, and I'm not.)

If UNDEAD is a contract, therefore, it's a private contract. Rule 2173
is very clear that the parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the
Notary informed of its text and set of parties. (I hereby state for the
record that I am the Notary, and have not been so informed.) In
particular, it is necessary to re-inform the Notary every time a new
Notary is elected; rule 2173 forbids the Notary to disclose such
information other than to the judge of a relevant equity case, and so if
the new Notary is not a member of the contract in question (and I state
for the record that I am not), and has never been Notary before (I
wasn't), then they have no way of knowing its text, and thus SHOULD be
reinformed.

Therefore, the only situation in which I don't have to be informed is if
UNDEAD is not a contract at all. A contract is a "binding [agreement]
governed by the rules" (R1742), and UNDEAD was certainly such an
agreement once. Murphy's 2007 thesis
()
provides indirect evidence of this; part of the agreement was also published.
Therefore, UNDEAD only fails to be a contract if it was terminated in the
meantime. The apparent existence of CFJ 2223 is further evidence that the
contract in question exists.

If the judge requires further evidence, then merely ask and I'll try to
do my best.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2008, at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> Therefore, the only situation in which I don't have to be informed is if
>>> UNDEAD is not a contract at all.
>>
>> You mean to say, the only reason you SHOULD not be informed is if the
>> would-be informers have weighed the consequences of doing so.  -G.
>
> And to make the investigation balanced:  I order H. Defendant Goethe to
provide
> evidence of whether (a) the contract presently exists and e did weigh the
> consequences of not informing the Notary; or (b) the contract presently does
> not exist.
>
> I'm fairly sure that the reply need not be public.

H. Judge OscarMeyr,

I deeply respect your intent and willingness to allow a private statement.
But I would rather not have the burden of knowledge on anyone in particular.
Two things, H. Judge:

1.  In my defense statement I said that *if* said contract exists then I did
indeed consider consequences etc., and if it doesn't there's nothing for me to
consider.  I'm pretty sure both possibilities lead to the same verdict so I
hope this is sufficient under the current Rules.

2.  However, while I might weasel out under #1, I'd like to ask that you
consider making a stronger precedent:  I believe that *unknown* Private
Contracts have a place in Agora and that for the good of the game, players
should be given the benefit of the doubt on whether they kept their contracts
private for a well-thought-out and considered reasons (see for example my
comments about "fishing expeditions":
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2008-Octobe
r/020521.html
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2008-Octobe
r/020523.html
).

In other words, I hpe the burden of proof would be on the accuser to show
that the contract exists and if so, that the defendants disobeyed a SHOULD,
even in the face of a defendant's silence.  So I specifically (and with full
knowledge of potential consequences) choose to remain silent on the above
facts as a test case.

With respect,
Defendant Goethe.

========================================================================

Judge OscarMeyr's Arguments:

The Notary's report dated 14 October 2008 does not list UNDEAD as a
current contract.  I accept this as prima facie evidence that the
Notary has not been notified of UNDEAD's text or membership, if it
indeed is active.

As best as I can determine, the UNDEAD contract was never terminated,
nor has there been any point since its latest documented inception
that zero registered players were members of the contract.  I
therefore have to presume that the contract is indeed still active
and has contracting players, even though it may be dormant.  I urge
any appeal board to look hard at this point before they overrule me.

Defendant Goethe has demonstrated that e has carefully considered the
consequenses of not informing the Notary of UNDEAD, whether or not e
is a current party to the contract.  Contracts among players kept
hidden from Agora at large have a long history in this game, possibly
even back to the days of the Mousetrap scam.  It is not my place here
to rule on whether the existence of a hidden contract should be
reported, just to note that the parties to such a contract should
know what they are doing.  (Which also applies to amending
fundamental rules such as R101.)

As Defendant Goethe clearly considered the consequences under SHOULD
as per R2152, I find em INNOCENT.

========================================================================

Judge OscarMeyr's Evidence:

Evidence 1, testimony from ais523 in response to my Order:

Rule 2173 says:
{{{
       The parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the Notary
       informed of its text and set of parties.
}}}

First, UNDEAD is definitely not a public contract. (If it were, the
Notary would be tracking it; I'm the notary, and I'm not.)

If UNDEAD is a contract, therefore, it's a private contract. Rule 2173
is very clear that the parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the
Notary informed of its text and set of parties. (I hereby state for the
record that I am the Notary, and have not been so informed.) In
particular, it is necessary to re-inform the Notary every time a new
Notary is elected; rule 2173 forbids the Notary to disclose such
information other than to the judge of a relevant equity case, and so if
the new Notary is not a member of the contract in question (and I state
for the record that I am not), and has never been Notary before (I
wasn't), then they have no way of knowing its text, and thus SHOULD be
reinformed.

Therefore, the only situation in which I don't have to be informed is if
UNDEAD is not a contract at all. A contract is a "binding [agreement]
governed by the rules" (R1742), and UNDEAD was certainly such an
agreement once. Murphy's 2007 thesis
() provides indirect evidence of this; part of the
agreement was also published. Therefore, UNDEAD only fails to be a
contract if it was terminated in the meantime. The apparent existence
of CFJ 2223 is further evidence that the contract in question exists.

****
Evidence 2, testimony from Goethe in response to my order:

1.  In my defense statement I said that *if* said contract exists
then I did
indeed consider consequences etc., and if it doesn't there's nothing
for me to
consider.  I'm pretty sure both possibilities lead to the same
verdict so I
hope this is sufficient under the current Rules.

2.  However, while I might weasel out under #1, I'd like to ask that you
consider making a stronger precedent:  I believe that *unknown* Private
Contracts have a place in Agora and that for the good of the game,
players
should be given the benefit of the doubt on whether they kept their
contracts
private for a well-thought-out and considered reasons (see for
example my
comments about "fishing expeditions":
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/
2008-October/020521.html
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/
2008-October/020523.html
).

In other words, I hpe the burden of proof would be on the accuser to
show
that the contract exists and if so, that the defendants disobeyed a
SHOULD,
even in the face of a defendant's silence.  So I specifically (and
with full
knowledge of potential consequences) choose to remain silent on the
above
facts as a test case.

========================================================================