Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-04 Thread Rebecca
it's to be found in rule 217. On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:25 PM James Cook wrote: > On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 05:49, Rebecca wrote: > > I suspect that the text is > > not clear and therefore the four-part test must be applied. > > What's the four-part test? > -- >From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-04 Thread James Cook
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 05:49, Rebecca wrote: > I suspect that the text is > not clear and therefore the four-part test must be applied. What's the four-part test?

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-04 Thread D Margaux
From the beginning, this issue was always going to become a CFJ. I’m not an interested party in the outcome, in the sense that the decision doesn’t give me any particular benefit in the game. And the caller of the CFJ isn’t appealing my reasoning, but instead agrees with it. I did give my

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-04 Thread Aris Merchant
I’m not sure how I feel about assigning you an appeal against your own reasoning. I generally intend to respect the favoring of cases, but I'm not sure that it's appropriate in this instance. -Aris On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:45 AM D. Margaux wrote: > I favour this CFJ > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-04 Thread D. Margaux
I favour this CFJ On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:49 AM Rebecca 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

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-04 Thread omd
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:21 PM Rebecca wrote: > > We do interestingly have a clause that says "The Rules SHALL NOT be > interpreted > so as to proscribe unregulated actions.". I suppose under my > interpretation, anyone who so interprets the rules in any circumstance will > be criminally liable,

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread Rebecca
The difference though is that only a Herald CAN publish a Herald's report and SHALL do so. When "vacant" is the Herald (and I admit that "vacant" is the Herald and is liable, but this is because the Officeholder switch specifically allows vacant as an officeholder), no provision of the rules

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread Rebecca
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,

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread Aris Merchant
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

Fwd: Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread Jason Cobb
Gah, sorry D. Margaux. Forwarded Message Subject:Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 00:30:06 -0400 From: Jason Cobb To: D. Margaux I'll point out that in that example, both parties were each committing

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread D. Margaux
> On Jun 3, 2019, at 11:47 PM, Aris Merchant > 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

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread Aris Merchant
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

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread Rance Bedwell
The officeholder switch for the office of Herald has been set to vacant for approximately 5 weeks.  By rule 2143 (Official Reports and Duties) and 2510 (Such is Karma), vacant SHALL publish the Herald's weekly report each week.  This has not happened for the past 5 weeks.  At the same time

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread Rebecca
We do interestingly have a clause that says "The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.". I suppose under my interpretation, anyone who so interprets the rules in any circumstance will be criminally liable, whereas under the contrasting interpretation, only the

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread Rebecca
The Ritual, however, isn't one! On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:36 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 12:16 +1000, Rebecca wrote: > > I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an > Officer > > report. An Officer report SHALL be

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 12:16 +1000, Rebecca wrote: > I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an Officer > report. An Officer report SHALL be published weekly", a robot may interpret > such a provision as imposing criminal liability on the report itself, but > any

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread Rebecca
I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an Officer report. An Officer report SHALL be published weekly", a robot may interpret such a provision as imposing criminal liability on the report itself, but any English-speaking person would realise that the ADoP is liable for

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread D. Margaux
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

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread Aris Merchant
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

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread Rebecca
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

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread Aris Merchant
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

DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread D Margaux
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