=========================  Criminal Case 1942  =========================

    comex breached Rule 1742 by not acting in accordance with eir
    obligations under the Ducks & Platypuses agreement, by being a party
    to that agreement.

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

Caller:                                 Wooble
Barred:                                 omd

Judge:                                  pikhq
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  OscarMeyr
Judgement:                              GUILTY/APOLOGY

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

History:

Called by Wooble:                       09 May 2008 01:17:42 GMT
Defendant omd informed:                 09 May 2008 03:21:19 GMT
Pre-trial phase ended:                  09 May 2008 21:47:51 GMT
Assigned to pikhq:                      11 May 2008 04:53:42 GMT
pikhq recused:                          23 May 2008 13:51:56 GMT
Assigned to OscarMeyr:                  23 May 2008 13:57:42 GMT
Judged GUILTY/APOLOGY by OscarMeyr:     30 May 2008 23:31:36 GMT

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

Gratuitous Evidence by OscarMeyr:

I don't have time for a quick look right now.  However, the Ducks &
Platypuses agreement does not seem to have been included in the
arguments.  I order H. Caller Wooble to provide me with the text of
that agreement as of 09 May 2008 01:17:42 GMT.  (If the agreement is
private, it's okay to notify me by private email.)

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

Gratuitous Evidence by Wooble:

Message-ID: <6bf32280805081728i5ce96256wec31f5d2545c5612@mail.gmail.com>
From: comex <comexk@gmail.com>
To: agora-business@agoranomic.org
Subject: Re: BUS: Ducks & platypuses
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 20:28:52 -0400

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Elliott Hird

<penguinofthegods@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I intend to make the following contract with comex:
>
> {
> Parties to this contract cannot leave this contract.
> Parties to this contract are obligated not to consent to making a
> Contract Change.
> Parties to this contract are obligated to not be party to this contract.
> }

I join this contract.

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

Judge OscarMeyr's Arguments:

The Ducks & Platypuses contract (see Evidence 1) is inherently self-
contradictory, creating obligations that cannot all be met without
violating the contract, and hence R1742.

A ruling of EXCUSED is not sufficient in this case, as the parties to
the contract had the opportunity to decline the contract.  I
therefore rule GUILTY in CFJs 1942 and 1943.

Given that, the only people harmed by this Rule breach are the
parties to the contract, ehird and comex.  I see no reason to slap
them down severely for creating a contract that demonstrates a proper
Agoran spirit of tying rules into knots.  Accordingly, I sentence
each of em to APOLOGY, to include the following five words taken at
random from Wiktionary (different parts of speech are okay):

* Ainu
* Schoolteacher
* Caiman
* Pervade
* Silliness

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

Judge OscarMeyr's Evidence:

-- Evidence 1 provided by Wooble: --

Message-ID: <6bf32280805081728i5ce96256wec31f5d2545c5612@mail.gmail.com>
From: comex <comexk@gmail.com>
To: agora-business@agoranomic.org
Subject: Re: BUS: Ducks & platypuses
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 20:28:52 -0400

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Elliott Hird

<penguinofthegods@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I intend to make the following contract with comex:
>
> {
> Parties to this contract cannot leave this contract.
> Parties to this contract are obligated not to consent to making a
> Contract Change.
> Parties to this contract are obligated to not be party to this
> contract.
> }
>

I join this contract.
-- Evidence 1 ends here --

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

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

When I made the Ducks and Platypuses contract, I was not writing in
Ainu.  The fact is that the silliness that pervades #ircnomic (now
##nomic (don't ask me why)) caused me to not to act like a sensible
schoolteacher, not to avoid making contracts with no tangible benefit
to myself and every possibility of punishment, but instead to eagerly
draft them.

Instead, I seem to have launched a caiman of a contract against myself
which, even once this apology has been submitted, is effectively
impossible for me to leave or even stop violating.  In fact, if for
whatever reason ehird leaves the world of nomic and I am once again
indicted for my continued failure to comply with the Ducks and
Platypuses contract, my only option may be to deregister.

What?, you ask.  Deregistration won't get me out of a contract!
Indeed, playerhood in Agora is meaning less and less: nonplayers can,
aside from participating in most contests, submit proposals and vote
on ordinary proposals through partnerships.  Although they cannot hold
offices, judge CFJs, or vote on Democratic proposals, let it not be
said that the authors of the best gratuitous arguments are not those
who frequently deregister.

But then again, R101 says:

      viii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than
            continue to play.

If I deregistered, but then I was still obligated to play (by being
punished in a criminal CFJ for violating D&P) then my right to not
have to continue to play would be infringed.  Alternately, if I
stopped playing, but then resumed playing at a later date, I have the
right not to be slapped with criminal CFJs for being a member of Ducks
& Platypuses during that time.  Indeed, I'd say that being in an
agreement under the rules of Agora counts as playing.

Therefore, if I deregister by invoking R101 (as opposed to R869, over
which R101 by far takes precedence), and my right to cease to continue
to play, it seems to me that I would be able to remove myself from the
Ducks & Platypuses contract, thereby terminating it.

This is in keeping with the spirit of the Suber rule that that clause
seems to replace:

113. A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than
continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than
losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.

But good luck testing *that* theory out.

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