====================================================================== CFJ 1096 An Order, as defined in Rule 1793, and of whatever type, is "a Nomic Entity created in accordance with the Rules" in the sense of Rule 1513 and as such is subject to the limitations set forth in that Rule, and in particular that Orders derive coercive power from some Rules and that the Rules take precedence over Orders whenever an Order conflicts with a Rule. ====================================================================== Judge: Oerjan Judgement: FALSE Eligible: Antimatter, Blob, Chuck, elJefe, General Chaos, Harlequin, Kolja A., Michael, Murphy, Oerjan, Steve, Swann Not eligible: Caller: Morendil Barred: - Disqualified: Crito (by choice) On hold: - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Selection of second Judge ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Eligible: Antimatter, elJefe, General Chaos, Kolja A., Michael, Murphy, Oerjan, Steve, Swann Not eligible: Caller: Morendil Barred: - Disqualified: Blob, Chuck, Crito (all by choice), Harlequin On hold: - ====================================================================== History: Called by Morendil, Thu, 21 May 1998 17:23:42 +0100 Assigned to Harlequin, Fri, 22 May 1998 09:20:52 +0100 Harlequin defaults Assigned to Oerjan, Wed, 3 Jun 1998 12:31:57 +0100 Judged FALSE, Tue, 9 Jun 1998 16:06:16 +0200 Published, Mon, 15 Jun 1998 09:41:20 +0100 ====================================================================== Judgement: FALSE Reasons and arguments: Rule 1586 defines: A "Nomic Entity" is any entity which has no discernible existence without the Rules, only existing by virtue of the Rules defining it to exist. No two Nomic Entities (including Players) shall have the same name or nickname. Rule 1793 defines: 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. It is my view that a command as above clearly has discernible existence without the rules - it would be quite possible to make such even if Rule 1793 did not exist. Thus the part of the statement 'An Order, as defined in Rule 1793, and of whatever type, is "a Nomic Entity created in accordance with the Rules" in the sense of Rule 1513 and as such is subject to the limitations set forth in that Rule,' is false. It is equally clear that the validity and coercive power (through penalties) of an Order is derived from the Rules. So the part of the statement 'and in particular that Orders derive coercive power from some Rules' is true. While the above suffices to determine the Judgement, there are more subtle issues here, which I wish to detail. Rule 1513 says: It is legal for the Rules to grant the power to require Players to perform (or not perform) actions to Nomic Entities created in accordance with the Rules. It is my view that the Rules do _not_ grant such power to Orders. Compare the situation for Orders with that of Subordinate Legal Codes: >From Rule 1591: A SLC has the power to constrain the actions of Players in the same manner as the Rules. >From Rule 1594: A Player who is within the Jurisdiction of a SLC is required to abide by it while e remains within its Jurisdiction, unless doing so would violate either the Rules or another SLC with higher precedence. For SLCs, there is a clear granting of powers and requirements. For Orders, however, there are only defined Crimes for non-compliance. In my view, a Crime is not automatically a Rule violation, and thus the Rules do not in fact require Orders to be followed in the same way as an SLC. Thus, the part of the statement 'and that the Rules take precedence over Orders whenever an Order conflicts with a Rule.' is true, in the sense that Players, in order to comply with the Rules, may have to commit a Crime by disobeying an order; however not in the sense that the entire Order and its penalty is escaped because of the conflict. I know that several Players think that Crimes should be automatic Rule Violations, but I think that matter is better settled by legislation. However, regardless of this issue in particular, at least one part of the statement is false. I therefore judge FALSE. ====================================================================== (Caller's) Arguments: I can easily predict that we'll have a hard time dealing with Swann's recent posts unless we hare a clear notion of how to deal with Orders as a whole. I propose the above principle, with Orders being NREs deriving coercive power from, specifically, Rules 1810 and 1811 (although that may be debated, which is why I didn't make the CFJ dependent on that). The rationale for that principle is that insofar as the Rules can be said to "compel" or "prohibit" certain actions which are non- retractable Moves, the instrument of such coercion is the threat of being cited for a Crime or Infraction. Thus a Rule which makes a Crime or Infraction of some action or inaction which is defined in some body of text other than the Rules themselves can be said to grant coercive power to that body of text, which brings it under the purview of Rule 1513. Thus, an Order prohibiting a Player from Calling for Judgement, which is what the Orders in "Here we go..." effectively do, is in conflict with Rule 911, and as such shall be deemed invalid; most of Swann's other Orders are dealt with similarly, or at the least innocuuous given that the higher-precedence judicial framework is preserved by the NRE principle. Conversely, the NRE principle does not rob other Orders of their effectiveness, and will not require huge patching up of the Orders Rules to close supposed loopholes therein. ======================================================================