=========================  Criminal Case 3107  =========================

    omd has stirred up prejudice and ill-will against Agora among the
    Artists of Blognomic by sending the message quoted in Evidence to a
    public forum and several members of Blognomic. In doing so, he
    violated Rule 101 by failing to treat Agora right good forever.

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

Caller:                                 Bucky
Barred:                                 omd

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              NOT GUILTY

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

History:

Called by Bucky:                        21 Oct 2011 03:05:42 GMT
Defendant omd informed:                 21 Oct 2011 03:05:42 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     21 Oct 2011 03:37:54 GMT
Transferred from ais523 to G.:          21 Oct 2011 16:46:00 GMT
Judged NOT GUILTY by G.:                21 Oct 2011 16:46:00 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

The Accused sent an incendiary message to the agora-business public forum,
quoted in Evidence (1).  In this message, he notes that Agorans attempted to
invade Blognomic and that Blognomic artists who were not also Agora players
objected to the invasion.  He then encourages others to continue performing
the very action which the Blognomic artists objected to.  Furthermore, the
message contained deliberate insults towards arbitrary members of Blognomic.

Furthermore, the message was not sent only to players; it was sent to all
subscribers to agora-business.  Several Blognomic artists (including Bucky,
Darth Cliche and Ienpw III  - see Evidence (2) - and likely including others )
who are not current Agora players are subscribed to the list, a fact which he
knew and/or could easily have found out.

CfJ 2515 found that bringing Agora into disrepute would violate rule 101.  The
Accused has most certainly done so.

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

Caller's Evidence:

(1):
From: omd <c.ome.xk@gmail.com>
To: agora-business@agoranomic.org
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 8:44 PM
Subject: BUS: HELP! (Call to Arms)

WE, the almighty and most noble Game of Agora (or a good chunk of it -
initial distribution included active players except some newbies to
prevent leaks), in our infinite wisdom, have decided to INVADE
BLOGNOMIC, for the Greater Good of both nomics, to end the current
stalling dynasty and replace it with a NEW DYNASTY led by the Speaker,
the Game of Agora Itself.  Unfortunately, the perfidious and
short-sighted BlogNomicians have had the AUDACITY to ORGANIZE A
DEFENSE, and a whole ARMY of idle players is reactivating and VOTING
AGAINST our Most Honourable Proposal!  This is unacceptable, and YOU
can help!

If you haven't yet, make an account (
http://blognomic.com/member/register/), and write a short post
(http://blognomic.com/update/index.php?C=publish) announcing your
arrival!  Then ask scshunt to process your registration, and when he's
done so, VOTE FOR OUR CFJ
(http://blognomic.com/archive/cfj_attn_cotc/) by posting a comment
containing ":FOR:"!

Defend our honor!  Don't make us remember this WAR in the annals of
history alongside the failed Acka-Agoran War and Risho-Agoran War!  To
arms!

seriously, do it :p

(2)
The three entities named have each sent messages to the mailing list in
question.  That mailing list provides a list of subscribers, and the addresses
from which the respective messages were sent are on that list.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ehird:

"Right good forever" cases are as oft-attempted as they are
unsuccessful. You cannot just accuse someone of violating the rules
based on a whimsical umbrella statement without an actual concrete
violation.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Pavitra:

The crux of the caller's argument is this:
> CfJ 2515 found that bringing Agora into disrepute would violate rule
> 101.  The Accused has most certainly done so.

Opinions on a scam still in progress may easily differ from opinions by
the same people on the same scam upon later reflection. It would be
better, I think, to wait until BlogNomic is no longer caught up in the
heat of the moment before evaluating the effects that the invasion has
had on Agora's reputation.

Unfortunately, Agora currently has no mechanism to wait for further
evidence; if the case is judged while the scam is still ongoing, then
NOT GUILTY is appropriate by reason of reasonable doubt, and any case
called later in light of further evidence would be NOT GUILTY be reason
of previous trial, R1504(c).

I therefore recommend that the caller retract the CFJ for the time
being, and re-call it in a week or so. Barring that, I would request of
the CotC and the judge to delay it in the system as long as possible;
appeals may also be helpful.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ehird:

Judge ais523's example hypothetical violation of that clause in eir
judgement of CFJ 2515 was "to bring Agora into sufficient disrepute
that playing nomic was made illegal in a real-world country"; the
alleged violation here is so hopelessly minor in comparison as to be
ludicrous.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

It is my hope that by the time this is over, whatever the
outcome, most involved will consider the invasion a positive thing.

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

Judge G.'s Arguments:

CFJ 2515 answers whether it's even conceivably possible to violate the
R101 clause in question, and so uses a hypothetical extreme of
"sufficient disrepute that playing nomic was made illegal in a real-
world country".  I would say that even this level of disrepute is not
necessarily sufficient.  For example, in this internet age it's
conceivable that an Agoran forum could end up transferring "illegal"
messages from demonstrators in oppressive regimes, which in the grand
scheme would be a great service, not a measure of disrepute (it's
possible that blanket firewalls of some countries already filter out
Agora; I don't know).

Still, the hypothetical possibility has been judged to exist.  So, as
not to allow these hypothetical extremes to be extrapolated as a threat
to daily discourse, I think a high bar needs to be set for violation.

I would say that the test on whether an act violates the "right good
forever" clause is whether the act is BOTH (a) truly ethically, and
morally repugnant, or against the spirit of nomic as a whole and (b)
something that the actor has maliciously foreseen could lead directly
and immediately to Agora's effective and irrecoverable demise as a
nomic.

In the Realpolitik world of internomic rivalry, this scarcely qualifies.
Nor do scams or general takeover attempts of Agora, even if it angers
players (e.g. by forcing multiple deregistrations).  On the other hand,
a scam that involved technical disabling of Agoran fora or the making
of large numbers of non-person sockpuppets might qualify (against the
nomic spirt and immediately crippling).

It's conceivably possible that the hyperbolic rhetoric of invasion
could hurt Agora through sparking a counter-invasion, but it brings
goodas follows:

  1.  It has enlivened both games' fora;
  2.  If Agora is not to be Loved, it Should be Feared;
  3.  Evidence is that this is leading to a round of defense-building
      in both games;
  4.  Outside of its graciously resident Agorans, BlogNomic is a stagnant
      swamp of slacking sockpuppets which needs the firm control of its
      betters to be guided back onto the path of righteous Nomicness.

NOT GUILTY (the Accused did not breach the specified Rule with the
specified Act).

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