==============================  CFJ 2395  ==============================

    If a player is required by a rule to do something by a time limit,
    and e deregisters before the time limit, then re-registers after the
    time limit expires (and didn't do the action), e has broken the rule
    either at, or immediately after, the time of eir  re-registration.


Caller:                                 G.
Barred:                                 ehird

Judge:                                  omd

Judge:                                  Wooble
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by G.:                           01 Mar 2009 16:06:30 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        01 Mar 2009 16:29:45 GMT
omd recused:                            01 Mar 2009 20:23:47 GMT
Assigned to Wooble:                     05 Mar 2009 07:06:22 GMT
Judged FALSE by Wooble:                 05 Mar 2009 13:41:49 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

I really don't know how to treat this case, which just happened.  A few

1.  E breaks the rule while e is deregistered, at the moment of the time
limit, even though e is not a player (vaguely seems to go against R101,
though in keeping with CFJ 2393).

2.  The obligation vanishes upon deregistration and does not re-appear
upon registration (though the fact is e didn't do the action).

3.  The breakage happens upon eir registration, for that is the first
moment of time in which e is both (a) bound to the rules; and (b)
beyond the deadline.


Judge Wooble's Arguments:

I judge FALSE.  The violation of a rule by failing to perform a
required action within a specified time limit occurs when the time
limit expires.

It should be noted that the courts do have the power to punish
non-players who violate obligations under the rules, even though in
practice this punishment is limited to forbidding the non-player in
question to register for a time (currently by giving em Rests,
previously by a sentence of EXILE).  Such punishments of non-players
are probably only appropriate when the non-players are participating
in the game in the larger sense, such as when they break an obligation
they've willingly made under an Agoran contract.  While the scope of
the rules is unlimited, clearly non-players who aren't participating
in the larger sense would fall under the former UNAWARE judgement on
culpability which has been absorbed into the NOT GUILTY judgement now.

The question of how to punish former players who deregister to escape
from rules-imposed obligations is a bit trickier, of course.  They're
almost certainly aware that they're violating the rules, but the
history of the right to deregister rather than to continue to play was
linked, in Suber's initial ruleset, to the right not to be punished,
in the judgement of the player, with a punishment worse than losing.
Agora's current ruleset doesn't make this right explicit, but the
R101(vii) right to deregister coupled by R869's prohibition on
registering within 30 days of invoking this right seems to serve the
same purpose in a game where "losing" isn't well-defined.  In
traditional games, and probably in Suber's imagination of nomic, the
game comes to an end after a period of time, after which some of the
players are winners and some are losers.  Since Agora in envisioned as
continuing indefinitely and it's possible for many players to "win"
without the game ending and everyone else "losing", it can be said
that Agora has replaced "no punishment worse than losing" with "no
punishment worse than loss of citizenship for a period of no less than
30 days." Whether it's appropriate to assign Rests to a player who has
already voluntarily deregistered to increase eir exile beyond 30 days
is a matter for the judges in individual cases to consider; my
personal intuition is that for most offenses a 30 day exile is more
than adequate.