Index ← 3850 CFJ 3851 3852 → text
===============================  CFJ 3851  ===============================

      R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in


Caller:                        G.
Barred:                        R. Lee

Judge:                         Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Judgement:                     TRUE



Called by G.:                                     19 Jun 2020 02:49:52
Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:      20 Jun 2020 00:26:04
Judged TRUE by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:   26 Jun 2020 15:49:22


Caller's Evidence:

R. Lee wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to amed the rules in the following
> inconsequential way:
> Amend every word in the ruleset except the rules at power 4 to read
> "Meep"

Caller's Arguments:

In reference to:
      Attempting a forbidden action is PROHIBITED, and is the Class-4
      Crime of Engaging in Forbidden Arts.

We never really define "attempt" though we use it a lot in the rules.
Generally, if you begin the prerequisites of a process to do something
(i.e. announcing intent to perform an action in a legal way that begins a
waiting period) a person would say you're "attempting" to do it.  ("What
was that announcement for?"  "oh, e's attempting to win by apathy").


Gratuitous Arguments by R. Lee:

Merely thinking and planning to commit murder isn't attempted murder, the
acts carried out have to be "more than merely preparatory" (under English
law). The same applies to this analogous crime, merely preparing to take
the ossifying action is not an attempt; attempt is actually doing an action
(even if that action fails, as it would ossify Agora).

The thing my proposal had to do with it was that it removed the bit that
said "intending to do a forbidden art is a crime" (or whatever). For what
it's worth under the common sense factors, the fact that making a formal
intent to do an action that would ossify the game was specifically removed
from the rule means that it is unlikely the rule is meant to still
criminalize it.

rules tend to think intending anything you want is okay and criminalizing
formal intent is bad, see the No Faking rule (exempting intent)


Gratuitous response by G.:

I submit, m'lud, that the fact that my learned opponent believed the
concept of "intent" was in the previous rule version shows that "attempt",
in a natural sense, coveys the sense of intent in the (unremoved) text.


Judge Publius Scribonius Scholasticus' Arguments:

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.

[1] "attempt." In **A Dictionary of Law**, edited by Law, Jonathan. :
Oxford University Press, 2018.