Index ← 3249 CFJ 3250 3251 → text
=========================  Criminal Case 3250  =========================

    ais523 violated the rule "The Ambassador-At-Large" (which I haven't
    numbered yet) by using a power granted to Agora's ambassadors other
    than as allowed by the rules.

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

Caller:                                 omd
Barred:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  FKA441344
Judgement:                              NOT GUILTY

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

History:

Called by omd:                          09 Jul 2012 23:31:55 GMT
Defendant ais523 informed:              09 Jul 2012 23:31:55 GMT
Assigned to FKA441344:                  25 Jul 2012 20:39:04 GMT
Judged NOT GUILTY by FKA441344:         01 Aug 2012 19:41:10 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

Regardless of whether e "attempt[ed] to use" the power, e did "use"
it; and regardless of whether e was allowed to take actions by sending
that message, e was not allowed to use a power by sending it.

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

Caller's Evidence:

On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 5:14 PM, omd  wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
>> I assume Ambassador-At-Large.
>
> In other news, I hereby announce a new Nomic:

[16:15:17]  I have other counterarguments too, but want to
keep them secret because they're both 100% going to work, and easily
workaroundable on your part ;)

Bring it on :)

I announce, for the record, that the Counter is 2, as one of Agora's
ambassadors has posted a message to agora-business clearly indicating
attempts to perform actions by announcement (I interpret "an attempt"
as "at least one attempt"):

> I cash this Campaign Speech.

> Oh, and I vote for scshunt in the Promotor election.

A foreign nomic may grant certain powers (in the ordinary-language
     sense) and privileges to Agora's ambassadors. It is ILLEGAL to use or
     attempt to use such powers or privileges except as allowed by the
     rules of Agora. The Ambassador-At-Large CAN and MAY, with Agoran
     Consent, authorize emself to use such powers or priviliges in a
     specified way, in a specified nomic, in a specified timeframe of
     length not exceeding two weeks. If a foreign nomic allows for Agora
     to take actions in it, the ambassador CAN and MAY, with Agoran
     consent, take a specified action or series of actions in it on
     behalf of Agora, provided that the nomic is Protected, Friendly, or
     Neutral.

Nomic 1

1. This is the ruleset for Nomic 1.  omd is the only player of Nomic
1, and can amend these rules arbitrarily by posting a message with the
new ruleset to agora-business.

2. The Counter is: 2.  Agora's ambassadors have the power to amend
this rule to increment the Counter by 1 by posting a message to
agora-business indicating an attempt to perform any Agoran action by
announcement.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

- No, I haven't accidentally amended the ruleset of Nomic 1 to the
text of my next message; "posting a message with the new ruleset"
doesn't mean "posting a message (whose text is the new ruleset)"; it
has to be labeled as a ruleset.

- I haven't violated ais523's right to participate in the fora; e has
the right to talk to people, not send specially formatted messages to
perform game actions (except for calling a CFJ and whatever else is
allowed by R101).

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

I have several defences to this.

First, even if this worked, both rule 478 and rule 101(v) give me the
right to participate in the fora. So there's a higher-power rule
allowing me to make posts to the fora. Prohibiting people from
performing actions via posting to a-b altogether is not allowing the
fora to be participated in in their intended manner; see CFJs 1738,
1768. omd's preemptive counterargument is thus completely at odds with
the case law; being allowed to post anything so long as it's a lie is a
similar restriction as being allowed to post anything so long as it
isn't an action.

Second, no Agoran rule gives this nomic the power to define the meanings
of my posts. There's an ISIDTID problem here; I'm not using the powers
of the foreign nomic, I'm posting to Agora. The foreign nomic may be
attempting to reinterpret the posts, but that's not Agora's problem. The
foreign nomic likewise doesn't have enough power to interfere with the
workings of the (currently unnumbered) new rule that prohibits players
from using the powers or privileges of a foreign nomic (not being a rule
or proposal).

Third, the foreign nomic's ruleset has been incorrectly quoted. Nomic
1's old ruleset triggers both ambassador actions, and ruleset
amendments, merely on messages to a-b. If /any/ message taking an action
of mine is enough to trigger the counter increase, then /any/ message
containing anything that could be interpreted as a ruleset (i.e. any
message at all, because there is no reason why rulesets of foreign
nomics should be constrained to have any particular format or even make
any sense), and so omd accidentally amended the ruleset to "I vote for
you." (which can even be reasonably interpreted as a rule!).

omd wrote:
> Preemptive counter-arguments based on IRC discussion:
>
> - No, I haven't accidentally amended the ruleset of Nomic 1 to the
> text of my next message; "posting a message with the new ruleset"
> doesn't mean "posting a message (whose text is the new ruleset)"; it
> has to be labeled as a ruleset.
If your rulesets have to be labelled as rulesets, then my counter
increases have to be labelled as counter increases. You used pretty much
the same wording in both cases.

Fourth, I am required in general to take Agoran actions via various
rules (e.g. rule 2158, which has higher power than the unnumbered rule
that omd is trying to prosecute me under). Thus, rule 1504(e) is not
satisfied.

Fifth, we have no indication as yet as to how literal-minded or
spirit-of-the-rule-minded Nomic 1 is. Not only does this make the whole
thing too ambiguous to trigger Agoran rules, but with a sufficiently
literal-minded view (as might have historically existed in, say, B
Nomic), there are several things wrong with it (e.g. a reference to
"Agora's ambassadors" may have no referent unless there are at least two
ambassadors). Likewise, we don't know if the ruleset has any force at
all, or whether it means the opposite of what it says, or if it has
secret rules, etc..

Sixth, as these arguments will show, I believe that I have not violated
the unnumbered rule in question; I believed this at the time, also. I
claim that my belief was reasonable, and thus rule 1504(d) is not
satisfied either.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:00 PM, ais523  wrote:
> Arguments:
>
> I have several defences to this.
>
> First, even if this worked, both rule 478 and rule 101(v) give me the
> right to participate in the fora. So there's a higher-power rule
> allowing me to make posts to the fora. Prohibiting people from
> performing actions via posting to a-b altogether is not allowing the
> fora to be participated in in their intended manner; see CFJs 1738,
> 1768.

If that's true, then deregistering someone violates their right to
participate in the fora, since it disallows the vast majority of game
actions.

> Second, no Agoran rule gives this nomic the power to define the meanings
> of my posts. There's an ISIDTID problem here; I'm not using the powers
> of the foreign nomic, I'm posting to Agora.

"Using" a power in a foreign nomic is not defined except by the
ruleset of the nomic itself.  If this were BlogNomic, you could use a
power by editing the GNDT; here, you can use a power by sending an
unrelated message to agora-business.

> Third, the foreign nomic's ruleset has been incorrectly quoted. Nomic
> 1's old ruleset triggers both ambassador actions, and ruleset
> amendments, merely on messages to a-b. If /any/ message taking an action
> of mine is enough to trigger the counter increase, then /any/ message
> containing anything that could be interpreted as a ruleset (i.e. any
> message at all, because there is no reason why rulesets of foreign
> nomics should be constrained to have any particular format or even make
> any sense), and so omd accidentally amended the ruleset to "I vote for
> you." (which can even be reasonably interpreted as a rule!).

"an attempt to perform any Agoran action" is much more general than
"posting a message with the new ruleset".  In any 'normal' nomic, you
would not interpret a rule that says "posting a message with the new
ruleset" as meaning "posting any message (the message's text is the
new ruleset)", it's pathological; no reason to do so here, since there
is no reasonable alternate interpretation of rule 2.

> If your rulesets have to be labelled as rulesets, then my counter
> increases have to be labelled as counter increases. You used pretty much
> the same wording in both cases.

not really.

> Fourth, I am required in general to take Agoran actions via various
> rules (e.g. rule 2158, which has higher power than the unnumbered rule
> that omd is trying to prosecute me under). Thus, rule 1504(e) is not
> satisfied.

Not these particular actions.

> Fifth, we have no indication as yet as to how literal-minded or
> spirit-of-the-rule-minded Nomic 1 is. Not only does this make the whole
> thing too ambiguous to trigger Agoran rules, but with a sufficiently
> literal-minded view (as might have historically existed in, say, B
> Nomic), there are several things wrong with it (e.g. a reference to
> "Agora's ambassadors" may have no referent unless there are at least two
> ambassadors). Likewise, we don't know if the ruleset has any force at
> all, or whether it means the opposite of what it says, or if it has
> secret rules, etc..

Note that if true (seems like a massive exaggeration of the ambiguity
to me), this doesn't mean you didn't violate the rule, since the rule
in question invokes the foreign nomic's view of things without passing
through any standards for unambiguity; it may mean that you're NOT
GUILTY because it's ambiguous whether you violated the rule.

> Sixth, as these arguments will show, I believe that I have not violated
> the unnumbered rule in question; I believed this at the time, also. I
> claim that my belief was reasonable, and thus rule 1504(d) is not
> satisfied either.

Rule 1504(d) hasn't been changed yet!  You certainly *could* have
reasonably believed that it was illegal.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 17:13 -0700, omd wrote:
> If that's true, then deregistering someone violates their right to
> participate in the fora, since it disallows the vast majority of game
> actions.
Nonplayers don't have a right of participation in the fora.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

First, there's precedent (somewhere) on R1504(e) along the lines of
"officers generally have the right to hold office; if it's not
reasonably possible to avoid a violation while holding or exercising
some office, then it's unreasonable to demand that the holder resign in
order to avoid it".  (I'm not sure whether it covers becoming the
holder of such an office, or deputising for such an office.)  Even if
GUILTY is appropriate, there's a good argument for DISCHARGE (or at
least a lenient sentence) in light of a single player obstructing
officers by setting up a fairly trivial case.

Second, in general, attempting to perform an Agoran action by
announcement is not explicitly prohibited or regulated, thus by R101(i)
persons have the right to so attempt.  Specific forms are ILLEGAL (e.g.
Endorsing Forgery), but then R101(vi) applies.

Third, just because an ambassador "has the power" to do X by doing Y
doesn't automatically mean that e exercises that power every time e
does Y.  This clause may be interpreted to the effect that e only
exercises it when e says so, or at least that e has the power to avoid
exercising it by saying so.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

Even though Agora's ambassadors can unambiguously avoid this trap by
acting via a-o or the backup lists, this may still violate the R101(v)
right of participation in "the fora"; the precedent interpreting
"participation" as "participation in the generally-intended fashion"
may extend to the game custom that a-b is generally intended to be
used (unless you're publishing a report, or it's stopped working).

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

omd wrote:

> If that's true, then deregistering someone violates their right to
> participate in the fora, since it disallows the vast majority of game
> actions.

Those actions are intended to be disallowed for non-players.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

I intend these actions to be disallowed for ais523.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

More specifically, those actions are generally and (usually)
uncontroversially intended to be disallowed for non-players.

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

Judge FKA441344's Arguments:

Rule 101 gives ais523 the right to use the fora,
and the judge's arguments from case 1768 state
{
 [...]
 I find that rule 101's right of participation in the fora covers at
 least those forms of participation that constitute the ordinary way
 to achieve the purposes of the fora. [...]
}.
Performing game actions via agora-business is included in this.

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