Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
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
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
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 tentative views on the subject, but I pledge to re-evaluate the
issue in good faith in light of the arguments that have been raised if I am
assigned this CFJ. I don’t have any commitment to any particular result,
except that I thought it was the correctly reasoned one, but I remain open to
being persuaded otherwise. (That’s partly why I labeled my prior email a
proto, rather than an actual decision on the pointed finger.)
> On Jun 4, 2019, at 12:56 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> 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 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 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
>> 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
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
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 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 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
> 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
> >
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
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 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 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
>
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
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, whereas under the contrasting interpretation, only > the Rules themselves are liable. > > This clause, I suspect, should be changed in some way. SHALL NOT seems like > the wrong term. I searched my mail and found CFJ 3403: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg26252.html It's quite an ironic clause, at least if you read it literally.
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
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 states something like "any player CAN deputise for the Herald, and the Herald SHALL be deputised for". In that case, no text even arguably provides that the failure to deputise imposes criminal liability. Only the Herald, vacant, is responsible. Unlike that two-step procedure, this is a one-step procedure in which "any player" CAN perform the ritual. Only the Herald, vacant, CAN and SHALL publish that report. So a clear and principled distinction exists. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:31 PM Rance Bedwell wrote: > > 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 there > have been several players who were able to publish the report during those > weeks under rule 2160 (Deputization). But they have all collectively > failed to do so. No one has suggested that any or all players who were > able to deputize to perform the action should be fined or otherwise > penalized for failing to do so. > The text is silent on what should happen if The Ritual is not performed. > I think that the above paragraph describes a substantially similar > situation in which game custom has been to not fine players so per rule 217 > I think that imposing a fine in this situation would be incorrect. > On Monday, June 3, 2019, 9:36:19 PM CDT, 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 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 > such > > a breach. Just because any player can activate this provision, no > > difference applies. After all, it is still "exact", as non-player persons > > could not be held liable for breaching this rule as they can for some > rules. > > I think the report would clearly be at fault if it happened to be a > person. (We've had previous rulesets in which agreements could be > persons; it doesn't take much of a stretch from there to imagine a > ruleset in which a document could be a person.) > > -- > ais523 > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
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 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’
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
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 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.)
Fwd: Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
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 an action that was independently illegal, even if it would not have caused harm if the other parties had not acted. In the case with the Ritual, a specific person failing to perform the Ritual in a given week is not in and of itself illegal (or "tortious" in the example). As evidence, everybody except Falsifian(?) failed to perform the Ritual last week, but nobody had a Finger pointed at them. Their action only became illegal when everyone else also decided to do so. Thus the analogy differs in some significant ways. Jason Cobb On 6/4/19 12:20 AM, D. Margaux wrote: 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 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 protobecause it’s not a rules based concept. But it did perhaps influence my thinking somewhat. This Ritual stuff seems interestingly analogous to a specific situationin 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 ofthe 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 withdue 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 beenacting wrongfully! See Restatement (2d) of Torts § 879 (“If the tortious conduct of each of two or more persons is a legal cause ofharm 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 (jointlyand 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 pointgoes to rebut the supposed injustice of holding people liable, rather than for whether they violated the Rules.)
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
> 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 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.)
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
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 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 > 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 > 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 t
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
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 there have been several players who were able to publish the report during those weeks under rule 2160 (Deputization). But they have all collectively failed to do so. No one has suggested that any or all players who were able to deputize to perform the action should be fined or otherwise penalized for failing to do so. The text is silent on what should happen if The Ritual is not performed. I think that the above paragraph describes a substantially similar situation in which game custom has been to not fine players so per rule 217 I think that imposing a fine in this situation would be incorrect. On Monday, June 3, 2019, 9:36:19 PM CDT, 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 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 such > a breach. Just because any player can activate this provision, no > difference applies. After all, it is still "exact", as non-player persons > could not be held liable for breaching this rule as they can for some rules. I think the report would clearly be at fault if it happened to be a person. (We've had previous rulesets in which agreements could be persons; it doesn't take much of a stretch from there to imagine a ruleset in which a document could be a person.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
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 Rules themselves are liable. This clause, I suspect, should be changed in some way. SHALL NOT seems like the wrong term. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:12 PM Rebecca wrote: > 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 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 >> such >> > a breach. Just because any player can activate this provision, no >> > difference applies. After all, it is still "exact", as non-player >> persons >> > could not be held liable for breaching this rule as they can for some >> rules. >> >> I think the report would clearly be at fault if it happened to be a >> person. (We've had previous rulesets in which agreements could be >> persons; it doesn't take much of a stretch from there to imagine a >> ruleset in which a document could be a person.) >> >> -- >> ais523 >> >> > > -- > From V.J. Rada > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
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 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 > such > > a breach. Just because any player can activate this provision, no > > difference applies. After all, it is still "exact", as non-player persons > > could not be held liable for breaching this rule as they can for some > rules. > > I think the report would clearly be at fault if it happened to be a > person. (We've had previous rulesets in which agreements could be > persons; it doesn't take much of a stretch from there to imagine a > ruleset in which a document could be a person.) > > -- > ais523 > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
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 English-speaking person would realise that the ADoP is liable for such > a breach. Just because any player can activate this provision, no > difference applies. After all, it is still "exact", as non-player persons > could not be held liable for breaching this rule as they can for some rules. I think the report would clearly be at fault if it happened to be a person. (We've had previous rulesets in which agreements could be persons; it doesn't take much of a stretch from there to imagine a ruleset in which a document could be a person.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
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 such a breach. Just because any player can activate this provision, no difference applies. After all, it is still "exact", as non-player persons could not be held liable for breaching this rule as they can for some rules. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:03 PM D. Margaux 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 > 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 > 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, 2019-0
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
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 > 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 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 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 +, 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
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
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 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 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 +, 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 >
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
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 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 +, 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
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
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 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 +, 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.) > > >
