====================================================================== CFJ 1093 Player Morendil did not commit the Infraction of Inciting to Riot. ====================================================================== Judge: Michael Judgement: FALSE Eligible: Antimatter, Blob, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, Harlequin, Kolja A., Michael, Murphy, Oerjan, Sherlock, Steve, Swann Not eligible: Caller: Morendil Barred: - Disqualified: - On hold: General Chaos ====================================================================== History: Called by Morendil, Tue, 5 May 1998 15:06:12 +0100 Assigned to Michael, Wed, 6 May 1998 08:15:28 +0100 Judged FALSE, Mon, 11 May 1998 11:03:00 +0100 Published, Mon, 11 May 1998 11:31:01 +0100 ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Reasons and arguments: I hold that one commits the Infraction of Inciting to Riot by failing to become Abiding within a month of last becoming Rebellious. Further, at any given time it is easy to determine whether or not someone has committed the Infraction: we ask "Are they rebellious, and have they been so for the last month or more?" This is clearly the easiest and most sensible reading of the rule as it will come to operate in the months after its passage. This case is only interesting because it involves a Player who became Rebellious before the passage of the Proposal defining the Infraction. Further support to this view comes from Real World practice when similar laws are enacted. For example, in Britain the gun laws were recently tightened to make it illegal to posses various forms of hand-gun. This legislation could have been phrased so as to instantly make criminals of all those who had been holding guns that had been legal up to this point. Rather than do something so unfair, the Government allowed for an Amnesty Period. In not doing something similar in Agora, the proposal creating the Rule defining the Infraction of Inciting to Riot has made instant "criminals" of Morendil and Harlequin. The Caller makes two further claims. Firstly he claims that Rule 1513 "Authority of non-rule entities" exempts him from being subject to the Infraction as the rule was not available to him at the time when he became Rebellious. This is suspect for two reasons. The first is that there is a strong case that R1513 does not restrict the power of the rules when its third paragraph states "No Nomic Entity is permitted to require...." The whole scope of the rule in question is non-rule entities, so to suppose that this third paragraph is now talking about the rules as well as the non-rule entities it has been talking about hitherto is suspect. Secondly, the claim that R1513 prevents the Infraction from being applied is countered by the fact that Morendil did have the text of the putative rule available to him before he became liable to the Infraction. This is because the rule was necessarily published in proposal form before becoming a rule. The fact that this text was not available to him when he Rebelled is irrelevant as he committed the Infraction on failing to become Abiding a month later. The final argument presented by the Caller is that Morendil is not liable to the Infraction because at the time of the detection and reporting of the Infraction he had become Abiding, and thus performed the duty required of him. This argument is akin to claiming that eventually submitting a late judgement for a CFJ exempts one from the penalty for late judgement if that Infraction has not yet been detected and reported. We well know that Agoran practice, custom and law does not suport this view. At the time of the passage of the proposal establishing the Infraction, Morendil instantaneously committed it. That this was only detected and reported after Morendil had attempted become Abiding is irrelevant. ====================================================================== (Caller's) Arguments: The Rule states "Any Player who *is* Rebellious continually for a period in excess of one month" (emphasis mine), not "Any Player who has been". Further, the clause "upon the report of the Infraction the Player becomes Abiding" seems to indicate that the report of the Infraction must occur when the relevant Player is still Rebellious. Further, I note that Infractions are defined thusly : Rule 1812/0 (Power=1) Notices of Infraction Any entity who performs an action defined by the Rules to be an Infraction, or fails to perform an action where such failure is defined by the Rules to be an Infraction, shall be subject to whatever penalty the Rules prescribe for that Infraction upon a Notice of Infraction stating that e committed that Infraction. Infractions are of two kinds : actions and failures to perform an action. The determination of penalties for is as defined as follows : Rule 1814/0 (Power=1) Timing of Penalties for Crimes and Infractions The punishment for a Crime or Infraction shall be whatever was specified by the Rules at the time the action so designated as a Crime or an Infraction was committed, even if the Rule or Rules which specified the punishment, or which designated the action as a Crime or Infraction, have since been amended or repealed. If the Infraction of Inciting to Riot results from "performing an action", it is therefore clear that I am not subject to any penalties; the only action that I performed that could be relevant was Rebelling, and at the time I did that no penalties were defined. If that Infraction results from "failure to perform an action", the issue becomes a little more complex. The action I putatively failed to perform was to switch from Rebellious to Abiding within some prescribed period. The Riot Act defines this period to be one continous month; however I question that this period can be considered to have started as of the time I became Rebellious. Rule 1513/1 (Power=1) Authority of Non-Rule Entities [...] No Nomic Entity is permitted to require a Player to perform or not perform an action unless the information of which actions can be required of em by that Entity has been previously provided to that Player. Especially, no body of text is permitted to require Players to perform or not perform any actions unless said body of text has previously been made available to that Player. The Riot Act was not "available" to any Player at the time I last became Rebellious, so I could not at that time have become required to switch back to Abiding within one month. I further question, no matter which interpretation is correct, that I 'failed to perform' the action required of me under the Riot act. At the time of Michael's alleged Notice of Infraction, any such failure had been corrected by my becoming Abiding again. ======================================================================