Alright. I dispute your conclusions in these two paragraphs: “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.”
Last week, the “described action” (the Ritual) was not “performed.” That violation came to pass because each player declined to perform the Ritual last week. In my view, because “failing to perform the [Ritual]” at least once last week “violates the rule in question,” that means that any player or entity capable of performing the Ritual violated the Rule through eir “inaction” when it turned out that the Ritual was not performed on time. Falsifian pointed eir finger at players each of whom could have performed the Ritual. As a result, each such player violated the Rule.” I don’t see how allowing every player to perform The Ritual implies that each player has violated the rule. You’re assuming that the obligation distributes over the entire group; there’s no textual basis for that. There are two interpretations that I find reasonable. Either the players as a group have violated the rule (and they should thus be given a blot *as a group*, which is impossible) or some player has violated the rule and we can’t know which one. There’s simply no basis in the text for assuming that the provision is universially quantified. Note that this is different from the other examples presented by others. If only one person could perform the action, there would be no quantification issue. Likewise, if a rule says that an action SHALL NOT be performed, we’ve got negative existential quantification, i.e. the person who performs the action is clearly to blame for it. Under the present conditions, however, each player can quite reasonably claim that someone else should have performed The Ritual, and that it wasn’t *their* fault that it wasn’t performed. Unless the rule explicitly states that the responsibility falls on each player jointly and severally (i.e. it’s each player’s responsibility to see that The Ritual is performed), there is no way to prove from the text of the rules involved that this should be the case. -Aris On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 7:03 PM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > That may make some intuitive sense, but I’m not sure which provision(s) of > the rules you think I’ve either overlooked or misinterpreted, and what your > interpretation of those provisions is. I think if we ground the analysis in > the text of the Rules then there will be more clarity about why we may > disagree. > > > On Jun 3, 2019, at 9:57 PM, Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The fact that any player CAN perform The Ritual and the fact that someone > > SHALL do so do not logically or by common sense entail the fact that the > > responsibility to do so falls on any player. Until we know exactly who > > SHALL do so, punishing anyone is premature. Even assuming that the action > > isn’t required to perform itself, that still doesn’t tell us who exactly > > SHALL do it. > > > > -Aris > > > >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:45 PM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> I think that this decision is corrrect as a matter of text. The rules > >> should be amended to give one player the responsibility, and each player > >> the ability for the ritual. But as the rules stand, "failing to perform > >> [the ritual] violates" the rules and "any player CAN perform the > ritual". I > >> think this decision provides the best reading of the text at issue. It > also > >> accords with Agoran practice in that abstract actions are usually not > >> required to perform themselves. > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 9:07 AM Aris Merchant < > >> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> I object. The rule says that The Ritual SHALL be performed; it doesn't > >>> specify who shall do the performing. In the absence of such a > >>> specification, holding any individual player responsible is clearly > >>> unreasonable, since their individual responsibility to perform The > Ritual > >>> was never explicitly stated. > >>> > >>> -Aris > >>> > >>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 12:59 PM D Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Below is a proto-decision on the fingers pointed by Falsifian > regarding > >>>> the Ritual; comments welcome. > >>>> > >>>> * * * > >>>> > >>>> The key question seems to be whether a fine for failure to perform the > >>>> Ritual CAN be imposed on players consistently with Rule 2531. Under > >> Rule > >>>> 2531, among other things, a fine is INEFFECTIVE if > >>>> > >>>>> (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 this case, I think a fine MUST be imposed because those > requirements > >>>> (and the other requirements) are satisfied by the players’ failure to > >>>> perform the Ritual. > >>>> > >>>> 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.” > >>>> > >>>> Last week, the “described action” (the Ritual) was not “performed.” > >> That > >>>> violation came to pass because each player declined to perform the > >> Ritual > >>>> last week. In my view, because “failing to perform the [Ritual]” at > >>> least > >>>> once last week “violates the rule in question,” that means that any > >>> player > >>>> or entity capable of performing the Ritual violated the Rule through > >> eir > >>>> “inaction” when it turned out that the Ritual was not performed on > >> time. > >>>> Falsifian pointed eir finger at players each of whom could have > >> performed > >>>> the Ritual. As a result, each such player violated the Rule. > >>>> > >>>> Ais523 suggests that the Ritual itself may have violated the Rule. I > >>>> think I disagree. In my view, the Ritual is the action required to be > >>>> performed; it is not an entity that violates the Rule when it is not > >>>> performed. Imagine the Rule instead said, “any player CAN hop on one > >>> foot” > >>>> and “a hopping upon one foot MUST be performed at least once in every > >>>> Agoran week.” We wouldn’t say that the rule is violated by the > >> “hopping > >>>> upon one foot,” because that’s an action not an entity. Same with the > >>>> Ritual. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 02:38 +0000, James Cook wrote: > >>>>>> I Point my Finger at every player, in the following order: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> omd, Aris, Gaelan, G., Cuddle Beam, Trigon, Murphy, ATMunn, twg, > >>>>>> D. Margaux, Jacob Arduino, Falsifian, Bernie, Rance, o, Jason Cobb, > >>>>>> Walker, PSS, Corona, V.J. Rada, L, Hālian, Tarhalindur, Telnaior, > >>>>>> Baron von Vaderham > >>>>>> > >>>>>> for failing to perform The Ritual in the previous Agoran week. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Explanation for how each player P violated the rules: > >>>>>> * Rule 2596 required The Ritual to be performed. > >>>>>> * P had a method available to perform The Ritual. Therefore P is > >>>>>> responsible if The Ritual was not performed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> (I had honestly intended to perform it at the last minute once again > >>>>>> this week, but forgot. I intended to do this because I try to follow > >>>>>> the rules. Though, honestly, I'm happy that we finally missed a week > >>>>>> so that we get to see what happens.) > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> From V.J. Rada > >> >
