====================================================================== CFJ 1094 The Orders issued by Player Swann in the message entitled 'Coup d'état' were valid. ====================================================================== Judge: Steve Judgement: TRUE Eligible: Antimatter, Blob, Chuck, elJefe, Harlequin, Kolja A., Michael, Morendil, Murphy, Oerjan, Steve Not eligible: Caller: Swann Barred: General Chaos Disqualified: Crito (by choice) On hold: - ====================================================================== History: Called by Swann, Wed, 20 May 1998 18:05:48 -0400 Assigned to Steve, Fri, 22 May 1998 09:12:33 +0100 Judged TRUE, Thu, 28 May 1998 14:47:50 +1000 Published, Fri, 29 May 1998 10:11:30 +0100 ====================================================================== Judgement: TRUE Reaons and arguments: I accept Swann's arguments, which address the issue quite thoroughly. In the matter of General Chaos' Motions, I am not sure if I am permitted to take any action concerning them. This is is not due to any uncertainty I have about the effect of Swann's later Orders (not the ones that are the subject of this CFJ, but the ones contained in his message "I didn't want to do this..."); I am satisfied that these Orders are valid and that their effect is to prevent me from granting any of G. Chaos' Motions. But Swann's Orders do not prevent me from denying the Motions, My concern is rather about R1827: A Judge must either grant or deny each Motion forwarded to em by the Clerk of the Courts, within five days of when the Motion was received by the Judge. E may, but need not, state the reasons for eir grant or denial. A Judge grants or denies a Motion by sending eir determination on that Motion to the Clerk of the Courts, along with any reasons e chooses to provide. General Chaos' Motions were sent to the Public Forum; they have never been forwarded to me by the Clerk of the Courts. (CotC Michael is technically in violation of R1023 for failing to do so.) Therefore I do not think I am required to grant or deny them. Nevertheless, I think I probably am permitted to deny them. Therefore, if I am permitted by the Rules to do so, I hereby deny all three of General Chaos' Motions. ====================================================================== (Caller's) Arguments: Part I: What is an Order and was Swann's post a series of Orders? >From Rule 1793; "An Order is a command, executed by a Player and directed to some entity requiring that entity to perform exactly one action, or to refrain from performing one or more actions." In addition, Rule 1794 (qv) defines several classes of orders. Of the four classes so defined, the Orders Swann issued would be classified as private, in that they were not issued under the authority of a Judge, Justice, or an Officer. Nowhere in the Rules-- and pointedly so given the pragmatic intent of the Rules in question-- is there a Rule that would prevent any communication fulfilling the criteria of Rule 1793 from being an Order, and therefore having the characteristics the Rules ascribe to Orders in general. This means that _any_ communication fulfilling 1793's criteria is an Order. Since the communication referred to in the statement was a series of commands, executed by a Player (Swann) to individual entities (Players notified through the Public Forum, which by definition goes to every Player) requiring those entities to refrain from performing one or more actions (i.e., refrain from issuing any Order of a type not explicitly defined by the Rules, and refrain from issuing any Order that the Player is not explicitly empowered by the Rules to issue.) Given the nature of the Rules governing Orders, I believe that it is self-evident that the communication involved was a series of Orders. (The Rules governing Orders are written to provide for anyone to issue an Order, the only legal recourse is the determination of the Order's validity.) Part II: Were these Orders Valid? The relevant portion from Rule 1796; In order to be proven valid by CFJ, the Rules must permit the Player who executed the Order in question to execute such an Order, that the execution of the Order must have been required by or permitted in the circumstances which existed at the time it was executed, and that the Order has not been rendered invalid by the operation of any other Rule. Since these are private Orders of a type not explicitly defined in the Rules (or, of a type only defined in 1794) this is the only part of the Rules that defines the validity or invalidity of the given Orders. So we must determine three things; Part II.i: Do the Rules permit Swann to execute an arbitrary private Order? The oft-quoted Rule 166; "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the Rules, which is permitted only when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly or implicitly permits it." This is an often abused rule, especially in the case of scams like the present one. But, in the narrow case of the question we are asking, it is absolutely applicable. 1796 asks, do the Rules permit a Player to issue this Order. Rule 166 responds, forcefully, "barring any Rules to the contrary, the answer is yes." Are there any contrary rules? There are, in fact, none. There is no Rule that prohibits any player from issuing any private Order e deems appropriate. (There is, in fact, very little restriction on who can issue orders outside the definitions for the various classes, which renders a strong sounding criteria practically void of any real effect.) Part II.ii: Do the Rules "require or permit" the execution of Swann's Orders in the circumstances which existed at the time they were executed? First off, the strong criterion, "require" is mooted by the weaker criterion, "permit." By Rule 116, if the Rules don't prohibit the Order in the given circumstances, they permit it. Again, there is no explicit restriction in the Rules upon the execution of an arbitrary private Order. There are a set of other "circumstances" that could trigger this clause if they existed; They would be the operation of an SLC, *or a prior Order.* Neither of these apply to Swann in the given situation. However, these "circumstances" now apply to all the Players subject to Swann's Orders. Part II.iii: Have Swann's Orders been rendered invalid by the operation of any other Rule? This provision is mostly redundant, but is an opportunity to emphasize again-- no Rule prohibited the execution of the Orders given by Swann, and given the nature of the Rules governing Orders, and the existence of Rule 116, the lack of such a prohibition is all that is required for these (or any) Orders to have their effect. In conclusion, it is an obvious conclusion that the Orders given by Swann do indeed fulfill all the criteria for validity as provided by Rule 1796. Part III: Are such arbitrary Private Orders effective? Do the Rules require the Players so Ordered to obey them? >From Rule 1811; "Any entity who, while required by an Order to refrain from performing an action, performs the proscribed action while the Order is in effect commits the Crime of Contempt by Action, a Class C Crime." This Rule clinches the idea that to violate these Orders is, in fact, "breaking the Rules." I believe that there is a strong Game Custom to the effect that committing an action defined as a Crime is "breaking the Rules." It is the pragmatic nature of the Order Rules that gives us the above construction rather than, "A Player shall do what an order tells em to, if e does not..." Which makes little sense to a true pragmatist. It is my opinion that the above construction, and game custom regarding Crimes, makes it "illegal" for someone to "break the Rules" by failing to comply with a valid Order. I include this and the following section simply as an addendum to the Agoran community. Part IV: The Caller's Beliefs and Intents; I believe that my actions were and are legal. I believe that my Orders were and are valid, and I believe that those Orders will prevent similar orders by other Players from being valid (by the reasoning I gave re:1796 about the circumstances rendering an Order invalid). I believe that this loophole exists, and is a very grave one-- obviously in that it gives the first player to exploit it absolute power to Order Players around. I believe that it is in the best interest of Agora that this loophole be exploited in exactly the way I am exploiting it, rather than in a slow evolution of micro-scams that could cause antipathy among players and unbalance our economy. Despite the power this grants me, I intend to shortly propose a fix (which I will Order everyone to vote for :) which will grant me some measure of recognition for what is, in fact, a move that changes-- temporarily at least-- Agora into Imperial Nomic XXX. I also would like to express an admiration for the Order rules in general, I do *not* think this loophole is a systemic problem. It can be alleviated by a rule that invalidates any Order not explicitly defined in the Rules. The order rules are a new paradigm, which can be seen by the amendment numbers of zero on most of the Rules. It is a fact of nomic that new paradigms will be scammed. In fact, the Order Rule have done one thing *very* right IMO; >From Rule 1796; "Furthermore, no Order may act to prevent or hinder its own appeal in any way, and any portion of an Order which has this effect is void and without force. >From Rule 1830; "No valid Order to Compel may be directed to a Judge, or may require the performance of any duty required of Player by the virtue of that Player being a Judge. Any such Order is invalid. Any CFJ alleging that a Judge has failed to perform a duty of a judicial nature shall be dismissed." Both of these are very good safeguards. Otherwise I could render this situation practically insoluble by Ordering the Judge of this CFJ to rule True and Order all subsequent Justices to Sustain that Judgement. I don't believe I would walk through that door if it had been left open. I'm not attempting to damage the game. However, the presence of these rules prevent an evil player from placing the game in an impossible situation. If given a choice, I would much prefer that the loophole I walked through remain open than replace it for the potential one addressed here. In conclusion, I promise a brief benevolent dictatorship followed by a loophole fix that will leave a small monument to my reign. As a wise person once said, "I urge calm." Player Swann ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Evidence: Rule 1793/0 (Power=1) Orders An Order is a command, executed by a Player and directed to some entity requiring that entity to perform exactly one action, or to refrain from performing one or more actions. An Order may be directed to the holder of an Office or other official position in eir capacity as that Office or other official position, and in this case if the Office or position changes hands before the Order is satisfied, the duty to abide by the Order automatically attaches to the new holder of that Office or position. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an Order, the purpose of which is to affect the operation of a prior Order, is as valid as any other Order, and is said to be directed at the prior Order it affects. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1794/0 (Power=1) Classes of Orders There are four classes of Order: Administrative, Judicial, Appellate, and Private. A Judicial Order is an Order executed by a Player while acting as a Judge. An Appellate Order is an Order executed by a Board of Appeals. An Administrative Order is an Order executed by the holder of an Office or other official position (such as the Speaker or the Recordkeepor of a Currency) other than that of a Judge or Justice, in the course of performing the duties of that Office or position. A Private Order is any other sort of Order. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1796/0 (Power=1) Validity of Orders All Orders executed in the manner prescribed by the Rules for their class and type are presumed valid and enforceable until proven otherwise by CFJ. In order to be proven valid by CFJ, the Rules must permit the Player who executed the Order in question to execute such an Order, that the execution of the Order must have been required by or permitted in the circumstances which existed at the time it was executed, and that the Order has not been rendered invalid by the operation of any other Rule. Furthermore, no Order may act to prevent or hinder its own appeal in any way, and any portion of an Order which has this effect is void and without force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 116/0 (Power=3) Permissibility of the Unprohibited Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the Rules, which is permitted only when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly or implicitly permits it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1811/0 (Power=1) Contempt by Action Any entity who, while required by an Order to refrain from performing an action, performs the proscribed action while the Order is in effect commits the Crime of Contempt by Action, a Class C Crime. This Rule shall have no application with respect to any Order which has been adjudicated to be invalid, and the invalidity of the Order is a complete defense to a Criminal accusation made under this Rule. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1830/0 (Power=1) No Compulsion of Judges No valid Order to Compel may be directed to a Judge, or may require the performance of any duty required of Player by the virtue of that Player being a Judge. Any such Order is invalid. Any CFJ alleging that a Judge has failed to perform a duty of a judicial nature shall be dismissed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Coup d'etat message: > For future CFJ reference, this message is entitled 'Coup d'etat.' > > Note: To avoid the inevitable swamp of appeals, I have issued a CFJ > on the validity of *all* these Orders. I would request that the > affected parties await the ruling of that CFJ, rather than increasing > the CotC's caseload to redundantly determine a single issue. > > Player Swann, in accordance with authority vested in him by > Rules 1793,1794 and 1796, issues the following private Orders to > the following Players; > > I hereby Order and command Player Antimatter to refrain from; > issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined > in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order > that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute. > > I hereby Order and command Player Blob to refrain from; > issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined > in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order > that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute. > > I hereby Order and command Player Chuck to refrain from; > issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined > in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order > that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute. > > I hereby Order and command Player Citro to refrain from; > issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined > in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order > that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute. > > I hereby Order and command Player elJefe to refrain from; > issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined > in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order > that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute. > > I hereby Order and command Player General Chaos to refrain from; > issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined > in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order > that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute. > > I hereby Order and command Player Harlequin to refrain from; > issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined > in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order > that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute. > > I hereby Order and command Player Kolja A. to refrain from; > issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined > in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order > that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute. > > I hereby Order and command Player Michael to refrain from; > issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined > in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order > that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute. > > I hereby Order and command Player Morendil to refrain from; > issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined > in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order > that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute. > > I hereby Order and command Player Murphy to refrain from; > issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined > in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order > that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute. > > I hereby Order and command Player Oerjan to refrain from; > issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined > in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order > that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute. > > I hereby Order and command Player Steve to refrain from; > issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined > in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order > that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute. ======================================================================