I favour this CFJ
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:49 AM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is an interesting case. Although I believe that the best reading of
> the rule holds all players liable, I call for judgement on the following
> question, barring Aris
> {If no player activates Rule 2596 'The Ritual' in a certain week, all
> players playing the game that week have violated the rule, which provides
> that (1) "Any player CAN perform The Ritual" and (2) "The Ritual MUST be
> performed at least once in every Agoran week."} I suspect that the text is
> not clear and therefore the four-part test must be applied. I believe it is
> in the best interest of the game to impose criminal liability for the
> violation of the Rules as much as possible. I also believe that it is
> perfectly reasonable as a matter of text to impose criminal liability on
> "any player" who by failing to act in "performing the ritual" (despite
> being able to do so) leads to a violation of the command that "the ritual
> must be performed".
>
> I note that we don't apply American law here, just like we don't apply
> Klingon law, unless it is specifically stated in the rules. Although
> American law principles may be applied as a part of the four part test,
> American law is of course occasionally atextual common law (or atextual
> statutory interpretation). Agora specifically provides that the text
> controls, precluding a test of "wrongness" in deciding whether something is
> a criminal violation in the first place, appearing nowhere in the text..
>
> I call this CFJ because whatever the final decision of the Referee, it will
> be contested.
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 2:34 PM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This would be true if failing to perform The Ritual was itself harmful
> > (malum in se). However, it is wrong only because the rules say so (malum
> > prohibitum), and I see no reason why we should extent their prohibition
> > farther than they explicitly do so. It is also a principle of American
> > criminal law that if the statue is ambiguous it may be void for
> vagueness,
> > so this law, which doesn’t make it clear who is responsible, should be
> too
> > vague to impose a criminal penalty.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:20 PM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jun 3, 2019, at 11:47 PM, Aris Merchant <
> > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I am delighted that you raised the idea of joint and several liability!
> > > That analogy occurred to me too; I didn’t mention it in my proto
> because
> > > it’s not a rules based concept. But it did perhaps influence my
> thinking
> > > somewhat.
> > >
> > > This Ritual stuff seems interestingly analogous to a specific situation
> > in
> > > which American law generally *does* recognize joint and several
> > liability:
> > > it is the situation where multiple careless or bad actors, each acting
> > > independently of one another, are each an independent legal cause of
> the
> > > entire harm that is suffered by the wronged party. For example, imagine
> > > that an elderly person walking on a sidewalk is carelessly bumped into
> > the
> > > road by a distracted pedestrian, and that the elderly person is then
> > struck
> > > by a speeding and reckless drunk driver, and e suffers very serious
> > > injuries. The distracted pedestrian and the drunk driver each were
> legal
> > > causes the entire harm—if either of them had been acting with due care,
> > > then the elderly person would not have been struck by the car. And the
> > > harm to the elderly person cannot be apportioned in any principled way
> as
> > > between the two wrongful actors. So American tort law holds them both
> > > jointly and severally liable, even though each of them individually
> would
> > > have caused NO harm if the other had not ALSO independently been acting
> > > wrongfully! See Restatement (2d) of Torts § 879 (“If the tortious
> > conduct
> > > of each of two or more persons is a legal cause of harm that cannot be
> > > apportioned, each is subject to liability for the entire harm,
> > irrespective
> > > of whether their conduct is concurring or consecutive.”).
> > >
> > > The Ritual strikes me as an analogous situation. Each player’s inaction
> > is
> > > a cause of the harm, and the harm that was caused cannot be apportioned
> > > among the players in a principled way. As a result, it is not unjust
> that
> > > each player is considered liable for the entire harm (jointly and
> > severally
> > > as it were), even though (as you said) “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.” Same with the
> distracted
> > > pedestrian and the drunk driver—each of them could say that the other
> > > should have done the prudent thing to avoid the accident, and that “it
> > > wasn’t their fault” the injury occurred.
> > >
> > > Here, each individual player should have done the prudent thing and
> > > performed the Ritual, and the fact that no other player performed it
> does
> > > not absolve the others of their moral responsibility. (I suppose that
> > point
> > > goes to rebut the supposed injustice of holding people liable, rather
> > than
> > > for whether they violated the Rules.)
> >
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>
--
D. Margaux
