======================================================================
                               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.

======================================================================