DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE on Reconsideration
On 2020-07-04 7:11 p.m., Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-business wrote:
I established in my previous judgment on this case that an intent to
engage in a forbidden action is an attempt to perform a forbidden
action; however, the case is under reconsideration because it is unclear
whether eir action was forbidden. Eir action was the following:
I thought of another thing to consider: R2221 says
Any player CAN clean a rule without objection by specifying one or
more corrections to spelling, grammar, capitalization, formatting,
and/or dialect, or to whether a synonym or abbreviation is used in
place of a word or phrase, in the rule's text and/or title; the
rule is amended by this rule as specified by that person.
I don't think R. Lee specified any such corrections. Eir message was:
> 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"
If e had said "[Fix spelling somewhere] and then amend all the other
words to read 'Meep'" then e would have indeed specified a spelling
corrections, so maybe the whole change would have been applied ("the
rule is amended by this rule as specified by that person").
I don't think it changes the outcome of the case, since a buggy attempt
is still an attempt. But I wonder if my interpretation is correct.
--
Falsifian
Re: Nomic 217 Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/27/2020 2:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On 6/27/20 12:10 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook wrote: >>> I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with >>> just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest >>> out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. >> >> Back in 2008, there was a short-lived nomic called "Nomic 217", whose >> initial ruleset consisted in its entirety of this paragraph copied >> from Agora's Rule 217: >> >> When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules >> takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or >> unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past >> judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. >> > I think that would be an interesting experiment to revive if others were > interested. > I'd join this if there's not too many other subgames going on (i.e. would be too much to do this and a different birthday tournament simultaneouesly). -G.
Re: Nomic 217 Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/27/2020 5:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/27/20 12:10 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. Back in 2008, there was a short-lived nomic called "Nomic 217", whose initial ruleset consisted in its entirety of this paragraph copied from Agora's Rule 217: When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. I think that would be an interesting experiment to revive if others were interested. I think I would be interested. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
to be fair, this might be different if i had not made it clear that i rule you all like a monarch On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 11:14 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > > > On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > > > >> The below CFJ is 3851. I assign it to Publius Scribonius > > Scholasticus. > > > >> > > > >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851 > > > >> > > > >> === CFJ 3851 > > === > > > >> > > > >> R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message > in > > > >> evidence. > > > >> > > > >> > > > == > > > >> Caller:G. > > > >> Barred:R. Lee > > > >> > > > >> Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > >> > > > >> > > > == > > > >> > > > >> History: > > > >> > > > >> Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 > 02:49:52 > > > >> Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: [now] > > > >> > > > >> > > > == > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > Actuallly I forgot about this, but I thought of something else > here. > > > > > > I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep" > > > would ossify agora. However, this would remove the explicit definition > > of > > > contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law" > > > agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of > all > > > parties. > > > > > > And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689. > > > > > > And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little > > > about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed > > > forum). Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't > > > explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew > > what > > > "public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining > proof > > > of consent, etc. Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that > found > > > that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed. > > > > > > Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora, > > > that's fine too... > > > > > > -G. > > > > I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with > > just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest > > out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. > > > > It doesn't sound that silly for Agora to still work with just the > > power-4 rules plus Meeps. The rules sort of say "There are fora; you > > say your actions over the fora; proposals change the gamestate; here's > > an example "fountain" rule some people made; now go have fun!" > > > > Given the absence of other guidance, R1698 might be interpreted as > > implying that the players can adopt proposals, and that they take > > effect unless they would ossify Agora. > > > > We have one of those on the Discord server. So far the end result appears > to be that, in the absence of any defined way of contributing to
Re: Nomic 217 Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
this nomic already exists: it's the ruleset of my discord server. nerds. On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 11:10 PM nch via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/27/20 4:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 6/27/20 12:10 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion > >> wrote: > >>> I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with > >>> just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest > >>> out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. > >> Back in 2008, there was a short-lived nomic called "Nomic 217", whose > >> initial ruleset consisted in its entirety of this paragraph copied > >> from Agora's Rule 217: > >> > >>When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules > >>takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or > >>unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past > >>judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. > >> > > I think that would be an interesting experiment to revive if others were > > interested. > > > > -- > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate > > Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth > > I like the idea but wouldn't commit to it right now just because there's > so much going on in Agora right now. > > -- > nch > Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager > > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: Nomic 217 Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/27/20 4:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/27/20 12:10 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion >> wrote: >>> I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with >>> just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest >>> out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. >> Back in 2008, there was a short-lived nomic called "Nomic 217", whose >> initial ruleset consisted in its entirety of this paragraph copied >> from Agora's Rule 217: >> >>When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules >>takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or >>unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past >>judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. >> > I think that would be an interesting experiment to revive if others were > interested. > > -- > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate > Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth I like the idea but wouldn't commit to it right now just because there's so much going on in Agora right now. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Nomic 217 Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/27/20 12:10 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion > wrote: >> I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with >> just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest >> out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. > > Back in 2008, there was a short-lived nomic called "Nomic 217", whose > initial ruleset consisted in its entirety of this paragraph copied > from Agora's Rule 217: > > When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules > takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or > unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past > judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. > I think that would be an interesting experiment to revive if others were interested. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with > just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest > out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. Back in 2008, there was a short-lived nomic called "Nomic 217", whose initial ruleset consisted in its entirety of this paragraph copied from Agora's Rule 217: When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/26/20 9:18 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > I may have forgotten this case existed. > > Rule 2221 reads, in its entirety: > >> Rule 2221/7 (Power=3) >> Cleanliness >> >> Any player CAN clean a rule without objection by specifying one or >> more corrections to spelling, grammar, capitalization, formatting, >> and/or dialect, or to whether a synonym or abbreviation is used in >> place of a word or phrase, in the rule's text and/or title; the >> rule is amended by this rule as specified by that person. > > > R. Lee's intent was: > >> 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" > > > The "without objection" part is probably clear enough to be an intent > to clean some rules. However, I'm not sure if the intent is invalid > because it doesn't specify a single rule or if it's one intent for > each rule. If the latter, it could potentially be construed as one > violation per enacted rule (of which there are 136)... > > That said, I have absolutely no idea which (if any) of my offered > readings is right. > > -- > Jason Cobb On re-reading, these arguments aren't relevant to the judgement or whether the action would ossify (I'm sorry for derailing the thread), but they might affect how R. Lee will be punished. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/26/2020 6:14 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On 6/26/20 9:11 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >> wrote: >>> On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > The below CFJ is 3851. I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851 > > === CFJ 3851 === > > R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in > evidence. > > == > Caller:G. > Barred:R. Lee > > Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > == > > History: > > Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 02:49:52 > Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: [now] > > == 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. >>> >>> Actuallly I forgot about this, but I thought of something else here. >>> >>> I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep" >>> would ossify agora. However, this would remove the explicit definition of >>> contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law" >>> agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of all >>> parties. >>> >>> And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689. >>> >>> And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little >>> about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed >>> forum). Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't >>> explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew what >>> "public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining proof >>> of consent, etc. Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that found >>> that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed. >>> >>> Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora, >>> that's fine too... >>> >>> -G. >> >> I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with >> just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest >> out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. >> >> It doesn't sound that silly for Agora to still work with just the >> power-4 rules plus Meeps. The rules sort of say "There are fora; you >> say your actions over the fora; proposals change the gamestate; here's >> an example "fountain" rule some people made; now go have fun!" >> >> Given the absence of other guidance, R1698 might be interpreted as >> implying that the players can adopt proposals, and that they take >> effect unless they would ossify Agora. >> >> - Falsifian >> > > There does seem to be an argument to be made here, but if that's the > case I'm not sure what effect R1698 would have. I think R1698 basically says "the only rule is that you can always change the rules". It's good proof that the rules can still be changed. It suggests the word "proposal" as an agent of change, suggesting some sort of democratic/discussion process. And as a playable concept, it's honestly not much different than playing a face-to-face nomic. In email nomic, you have to spell out a lot of assumptions to start. How to vote, for example. In the original
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/26/20 12:04 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: >>> The below CFJ is 3851. I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. >>> >>> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851 >>> >>> === CFJ 3851 === >>> >>> R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in >>> evidence. >>> >>> == >>> Caller:G. >>> Barred:R. Lee >>> >>> Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >>> >>> == >>> >>> History: >>> >>> Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 02:49:52 >>> Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: [now] >>> >>> == >> 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. >> > Actuallly I forgot about this, but I thought of something else here. > > I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep" > would ossify agora. However, this would remove the explicit definition of > contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law" > agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of all > parties. > > And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689. > > And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little > about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed > forum). Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't > explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew what > "public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining proof > of consent, etc. Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that found > that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed. > > Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora, > that's fine too... > > -G. > I may have forgotten this case existed. Rule 2221 reads, in its entirety: > Rule 2221/7 (Power=3) > Cleanliness > > Any player CAN clean a rule without objection by specifying one or > more corrections to spelling, grammar, capitalization, formatting, > and/or dialect, or to whether a synonym or abbreviation is used in > place of a word or phrase, in the rule's text and/or title; the > rule is amended by this rule as specified by that person. R. Lee's intent was: > 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" The "without objection" part is probably clear enough to be an intent to clean some rules. However, I'm not sure if the intent is invalid because it doesn't specify a single rule or if it's one intent for each rule. If the latter, it could potentially be construed as one violation per enacted rule (of which there are 136)... That said, I have absolutely no idea which (if any) of my offered readings is right. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/26/20 9:11 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >>> On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: The below CFJ is 3851. I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851 === CFJ 3851 === R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in evidence. == Caller:G. Barred:R. Lee Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus == History: Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 02:49:52 Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: [now] == >>> 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. >>> >> >> Actuallly I forgot about this, but I thought of something else here. >> >> I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep" >> would ossify agora. However, this would remove the explicit definition of >> contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law" >> agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of all >> parties. >> >> And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689. >> >> And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little >> about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed >> forum). Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't >> explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew what >> "public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining proof >> of consent, etc. Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that found >> that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed. >> >> Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora, >> that's fine too... >> >> -G. > > I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with > just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest > out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. > > It doesn't sound that silly for Agora to still work with just the > power-4 rules plus Meeps. The rules sort of say "There are fora; you > say your actions over the fora; proposals change the gamestate; here's > an example "fountain" rule some people made; now go have fun!" > > Given the absence of other guidance, R1698 might be interpreted as > implying that the players can adopt proposals, and that they take > effect unless they would ossify Agora. > > - Falsifian > There does seem to be an argument to be made here, but if that's the case I'm not sure what effect R1698 would have. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > > On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > > >> The below CFJ is 3851. I assign it to Publius Scribonius > Scholasticus. > > >> > > >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851 > > >> > > >> === CFJ 3851 > === > > >> > > >> R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in > > >> evidence. > > >> > > >> > == > > >> Caller:G. > > >> Barred:R. Lee > > >> > > >> Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > >> > > >> > == > > >> > > >> History: > > >> > > >> Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 02:49:52 > > >> Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: [now] > > >> > > >> > == > > > 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. > > > > > > > Actuallly I forgot about this, but I thought of something else here. > > > > I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep" > > would ossify agora. However, this would remove the explicit definition > of > > contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law" > > agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of all > > parties. > > > > And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689. > > > > And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little > > about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed > > forum). Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't > > explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew > what > > "public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining proof > > of consent, etc. Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that found > > that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed. > > > > Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora, > > that's fine too... > > > > -G. > > I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with > just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest > out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. > > It doesn't sound that silly for Agora to still work with just the > power-4 rules plus Meeps. The rules sort of say "There are fora; you > say your actions over the fora; proposals change the gamestate; here's > an example "fountain" rule some people made; now go have fun!" > > Given the absence of other guidance, R1698 might be interpreted as > implying that the players can adopt proposals, and that they take > effect unless they would ossify Agora. > We have one of those on the Discord server. So far the end result appears to be that, in the absence of any defined way of contributing to the game, no one even tries. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > >> The below CFJ is 3851. I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. > >> > >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851 > >> > >> === CFJ 3851 === > >> > >> R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in > >> evidence. > >> > >> == > >> Caller:G. > >> Barred:R. Lee > >> > >> Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > >> > >> == > >> > >> History: > >> > >> Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 02:49:52 > >> Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: [now] > >> > >> == > > 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. > > > > Actuallly I forgot about this, but I thought of something else here. > > I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep" > would ossify agora. However, this would remove the explicit definition of > contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law" > agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of all > parties. > > And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689. > > And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little > about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed > forum). Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't > explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew what > "public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining proof > of consent, etc. Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that found > that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed. > > Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora, > that's fine too... > > -G. I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. It doesn't sound that silly for Agora to still work with just the power-4 rules plus Meeps. The rules sort of say "There are fora; you say your actions over the fora; proposals change the gamestate; here's an example "fountain" rule some people made; now go have fun!" Given the absence of other guidance, R1698 might be interpreted as implying that the players can adopt proposals, and that they take effect unless they would ossify Agora. - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: >> The below CFJ is 3851. I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. >> >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851 >> >> === CFJ 3851 === >> >> R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in >> evidence. >> >> == >> Caller:G. >> Barred:R. Lee >> >> Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> >> == >> >> History: >> >> Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 02:49:52 >> Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: [now] >> >> == > 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. > Actuallly I forgot about this, but I thought of something else here. I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep" would ossify agora. However, this would remove the explicit definition of contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law" agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of all parties. And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689. And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed forum). Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew what "public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining proof of consent, etc. Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that found that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed. Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora, that's fine too... -G.
