=========================  Criminal Case 1943  =========================

    ehird 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:                                 ehird

Judge:                                  pikhq
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  OscarMeyr
Judgement:                              GUILTY/APOLOGY

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

History:

Called by Wooble:                       09 May 2008 01:17:42 GMT
Defendant ehird informed:               09 May 2008 03:21:19 GMT
Pre-trial phase ended:                  09 May 2008 15:18:15 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 Arguments by ehird:

The Argument:

I should not be found GUILTY because the contract obligated
its parties to not be party to it, and therefore the contract
obligated its parties to break the rules. Therefore, since I
could not have done anything else, I plead EXCUSED.

The Rebuttal:

The argument is invalid because I could have not made the
contract in the first place, thus avoiding breaking the rules.
Therefore, I should be found GUILTY.

The Rebuttal of the Rebuttal:

I should not be found GUILTY because my religion -
Agoracontractian - requires me to make that contract, and
it is unreasonable to say that I could drop my religion to
avoid breaking the rules. Therefore, I plead EXCUSED.

The Agoracontractian Religion:

This religion has two commandments, given by God at the
beginning of time. These commandments MUST be obeyed
by its adherents. I am the only member of this religion.

1. A member of the Agoracontractian religion must make
   the Ducks & Platypuses Agoran contract.
2. These commandments are an Agoran public contract.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

On 5/9/08, Charles Reiss <woggling@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Elliott Hird
> <penguinofthegods@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > (I will hereby rebut the argument which is against my guilt and,
> > therefore, for my innocence.)
> >
> > These arguments relate to CFJ 1943.
> >
> > The Argument:
> >
> > I should not be found GUILTY because the contract obligated
> > its parties to not be party to it, and therefore the contract
> > obligated its parties to break the rules. Therefore, since I
> > could not have done anything else, I plead EXCUSED.
> >
> > The Rebuttal:
> >
> > The argument is invalid because I could have not made the
> > contract in the first place, thus avoiding breaking the rules.
> > Therefore, I should be found GUILTY.
> >
> > The Rebuttal of the Rebuttal:
> >
> > I should not be found GUILTY because my religion -
> > Agoracontractian - requires me to make that contract, and
> > it is unreasonable to say that I could drop my religion to
> > avoid breaking the rules. Therefore, I plead EXCUSED.
> >
> > The Agoracontractian Religion:
> >
> > This religion has two commandments, given by God at the
> > beginning of time. These commandments MUST be obeyed
> > by its adherents. I am the only member of this religion.
> >
> > 1. A member of the Agoracontractian religion must make
> >   the Ducks & Platypuses Agoran contract.
> > 2. These commandments are an Agoran public contract.
>
> I think you're trying to say that this is a Public Contract to which
> you are a party, but it is not, since if you were the only party it
> would dissolve immediately (it requires at least two parties) and no
> effective announcement of it having more than two parties has been
> made.
>
> Regardless the contract which at issue seems to have a loophole of
> allowing you to propose and not oppose a proposal that would modify
> the contract. Since you have not done so, I believe a verdict of
> EXCUSED is plainly not reasonable.

There is no reason for em to do that because e has every reason to
believe that I will be a law-abiding citizen and not approve it.
Besides, proposing a change could potentially be considered "consent".
 I argue that because arranging to leave the contract would require me
to exacerbate my violation of Rule 1742 by consenting to a proposed
change, given the reasonable assumption that ehird will not consent to
a change that I propose, I could not (at the time Wooble initiated the
case, or at any time after the contract was formed) avoid breaking the
rules in a way at least as serious as alleged, and so should be
EXCUSED.

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

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 ehird:

Oh dear, I apologise for my silliness in this matter - you see, today
I just woke up and realised I had not submitted my apology, really
terribly sorry, don't know how I can make it up to you, it is really
awful when something like this happens you know (I think Plato wrote
something about it) and so it distresses me quite a bit; so you can
see what it results in - this kind of stuff pervades my life, which is
a shame - anyway, I am very sorry, I had no 'schoolteacher' character
(even parttime would do, I do not wish to impose life schedules) when
I committed these crimes so I am afraid I had no moral basis to avoid
committing such crimes - I am suprised that you offered such a modest
punishment, for I would have personally imitated a caiman and put down
something much more harsh - so I would like to say that I am part of
the Ainu ethnic group and this severely impacts my thought processes
and actions, making me commit crimes more often (no offense to the
Ainu people) - I am truly sorry and I apologise profusely.


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