=========================  Criminal Case 3383  =========================

    Fool violated Rule 101 by failing to treat Agora right good forever,
    by purporting to deregister all other players and subsequently lock
    them out of the game.


Caller:                                 scshunt

Judge:                                  Ienpw III
Judgement:                              GUILTY/TIME OUT

Appeal:                                 3383a



Called by scshunt:                      01 Aug 2013 03:45:53 GMT
Assigned to Ienpw III:                  05 Aug 2013 13:11:26 GMT
Judged GUILTY/TIME OUT by Ienpw III:    07 Aug 2013 10:28:19 GMT
Appealed by omd:                        07 Aug 2013 19:18:55 GMT
Appealed by Machiavelli:                07 Aug 2013 20:00:01 GMT
Appealed by teucer:                     07 Aug 2013 20:57:32 GMT
Appeal 3383a:                           07 Aug 2013 20:57:32 GMT


Gratuitous Arguments by Fool:

Hah, nonsense!

Your Alleged Honour, I plead NOT GUILTY. This is a "political" CFJ.

Now the rules only say you SHOULD NOT assign an inappropriate sentence
(R2158). It is perfectly legal for you to EXILE me for no particular reason,
and that is probably the plan here.

Very well, sir. Even though my arguments probably make no difference
whatsoever, I still feel I must take this opportunity to SET THE RECORD
STRAIGHT: these are LIES, I say to you all, LIES! LIES!!! My action is both
POSSIBLE and LEGAL. Whatever you think I am, I am not a CHEATER.

The Crown cited the precedent of CFJ 2515 against me, where it is said that
bringing Agora into severe disrepute could constitute an R101 violation.

Well now ISN'T THAT FUNNY. Let us look at where CFJ 2515 has been cited as
precedent. How about CFJ 3107? There, it was alleged it brought Agora into
disrepute for someone to invade another nomic in the name of Agora.

Now THAT makes more sense, doesn't it folks?

Agora's invasion of another nomic (which, LET ME ADD, unlike Agora, was
isolationist and had no prior history of sticking its nose into other nomics)
brought _Agora_ into disrepute, not that other nomic. Similarly, Queen Davy's
invasion of Agora might (MAYBE) bring _her_ into disrepute, but it obviusly
wouldn't bring Agora into disrepute.

For that matter, the accused in CFJ 3107 was found NOT GUILTY, and the case is
generally a showcase of Agora's BELLIGERENCE and ARROGANCE. And Agora is
UNREPENTENT about it, as evidenced by omd's recent messages, not to mention
the prominent display of its warlike history on the front page of
agoranomic.org, where it basically says "hey we may LOOK like no fun, but
we're FUN, really we are! Sometimes we do stuff just to see what will happen!
Some people called us boring, and we went to war! Pretty fun, eh? Guys?"
Perhaps this is misleading advertisement.

I quote from CFJ 3107:

  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.

But, as recent events show, it is Agora that is the CESSPOOL of DELUDED
PLATONISTS and ABSURDLY LITERAL LOGICISTS, and it is clearly YOU who need the
firm hand to be guided back to RIGHTEOUSNESS. As I explained elsewhere, you
are all GUILTY and de-registration is an insufficient sentence.

So, in summary, SURRENDER.


Judge Ienpw III's Arguments:

Judgement: GUILTY/TIME OUT (21 days)

It is straightforward to ascertain that Fool did purport to deregister all
other players and lock them out of the game. I therefore sought to determine
whether this constituted a violation of the sentence 'Please treat Agora right
good forever' in Rule 101 (hereafter, 'the clause'). It was found by Judge
ais523 in CFJ 2515 that it is possible to violate the clause. In CFJ 3107,
Judge G. opined, in part, as follows:

> 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

Before examining the case in detail, I will note that Judge G.'s opinion does
not preclude the possibility of multiple deregistrations constituting a
violation of the clause; rather, it affirms that they do not *necessarily*
constitute such.

While I consider these standards generally to be an appropriate metric for
determining what fails to 'treat Agora right good forever,' Judge G.'s
assertion that BOTH criterion (a) and (b) must be fulfilled seems particularly
limiting as they permit certain actions which seem quite clearly to fail to
uphold the clause. A hypothetical example is below; following that I explain
why Fool's purported actions violate the clause.

Suppose a player executed an ingenious, valid scam to enact a rule immediately
and irrevocably ending the game. Though this might not be a particularly nice
move, it would not be ethically or morally 'repugnant' by standard definitions
of the word. I hold, too, that an ingenious scam is very much in the spirit of
nomic even in cases where it leads to the end of the game; many nomics do have
a final end. Given that the player would knowingly end Agora irrevocably and
forever and that Agora's longevity and continuation is considered particularly
important to its players, I hold that such an action would violate rule 101.

Amended to require the violation of EITHER of the above two criteria, these
standards permit the vast majority of scams and common game actions and
combinations of game actions to an extent that most players need never worry
about violating this clause, while still forbidding particularly malicious or
immediately destructive actions. Furthermore, it seems that Judge G.'s intent
in using the word 'immediate' was to reduce ambiguity surrounding players'
intent to cripple the game. I therefore consider the following to be the
standards by which alleged violations of the clause should be judged:

> Whether the act is EITHER (a) ethically and morally repugnant, or against
the spirit of nomic as a whole or (b) something that the actor has maliciously
foreseen could lead directly and inevitably to Agora's effective and
irrecoverable demise as a nomic.

I will first address, for posterity and completeness, why I believe Fool's
purported actions DO NOT violate criterion (b) of the standards. The
deregistration and subsequent barring of registrations could lead to the
demise of Agora in certain circumstances. For instance, a permanent ban on
registrations would lead to the effective demise of the nomic. Fool's
purported barring of registrations is reversible and e has not given the
impression that it is intended to be permanent. Given that Agora's game custom
generally entails a long-term commitment to the nomic, it is likely that the
ban could last some time before most players permanently lost interest. The
demise of Agora does not, therefore, necessarily follow from Fool's actions.

While exactly what 'the spirit of nomic' entails is controversial, it is very
plain to me that Fool's actions DO violate the spirit of nomic in criterion
(a) as well, incidentally, as being a *gross* violation of Agora game custom.
Deregistering all other players is uncommon; temporarily forbidding all other
players from rejoining is quite bad form. I do not hold that doing either or
both of these necessarily constitutes a violation of the clause. However, the
manner in which Fool has done so cannot be ignored:

* E has rebuffed all other players; efforts thus far at resolving the two
interpretations of the game.
* E has refused to resolve the interpretations emself by effectively undoing,
in eir interpretation, the changes e has made.
* E has implied that in order to resolve the dispute, all other players must
'surrender' to eir interpretation ('I've done nothing to prevent the
controversy from being settled. You can surrender anytime!').
* Further to the previous point, e ended eir defense as follows: 'So, in
summary, SURRENDER.'

In short, rather than work with the rest of Agora to determine the gamestate,
e is stubbornly, deliberately, and belligerently obstructing gameplay. I hold
that poor sportsmanship is clearly against the spirit of nomic. Further, more
than any other section of the ruleset, the clause seems to address the spirit
in which Agora, specifically, is to be played. Finally, nomics – including
Agora – are games. While perhaps for varying reasons, most if not all players
seem to derive enjoyment from Agora; Fool seems to take pleasure in depriving
others of that enjoyment. For all of the above reasons, I find Fool GUILTY.

In assigning a sentence, I considered all of the following to determine that
Fool's violation of the clause is of quite a high severity:

* The particulars of the above arguments.
* The very limited circumstances in which the clause can be violated according
to the standards I have used.
* That the clause apparently exists to guide the spirit of the game and to
protect Agora from malicious intent.
* That the scam in question is both seemingly unprecedented and generally bad
* That Fool is making no effort to resolve the crisis e has created, and that
this scam COULD ultimately prove damaging or even lethal to Agora.

Sentences of discharge, fine, and apology are too lenient for this violation.
A sentence of community service requiring Fool to resolve the two
interpretations of the gamestate might be appropriate, but is ineffective: if
Fool's interpretation were unambiguously correct, this judgement would have no
effect. If it were unambiguously incorrect, e would not need to resolve the

This leaves remaining sentences of time out or exile. Given that Fool has
attempted to indefinitely suspend all other players, a sentence of exile might
at first seem appropriate. However, as Fool's violation of the clause was not
a clear, malicious attempt to destroy the game, it seems inappropriate to
consider this a rule breach 'of the highest severity'.

I assign the maximum remaining sentence of TIME OUT/21 DAYS.


Appellant omd's Arguments:

I intend to appeal this judgement with two support, as I disagree that
Fool's actions so far have been sufficiently severely against the
spirit of nomic as a whole, and I think it sets a bad precedent to
punish players for anything other than the most severely poor form
(and I'm pretty sure you can get a lot poorer than this) or a threat
to the continued existence of Agora; while I've speculated about the
potential impact of the scam on the latter, I agree with the judge
that the threat has not been sufficiently realized.


Appellant Machiavelli's Arguments:

I support. Fool's actions don't necessarily seem malicious to me. I think the
actions are easily accounted for by negligence, or perhaps just a strong sense
of humor or something. Fool is a relatively new player, I believe; let em see
the consequences of eir actions, and e can come to a decision about how to
behave in the future.


Appellant teucer's Arguments:

While I feel that guilty is an appropriate judgment, I think such a
harsh penalty against a new player for a crime that didn't even work
(and was quite creative to boot) is a bit much. Therefore, I support
and do so.