This is an interesting case. Although I believe that the best reading of
the rule holds all players liable, I call for judgement on the following
question, barring Aris
{If no player activates Rule 2596 'The Ritual' in a certain week, all
players playing the game that week have violated the rule, which provides
that (1) "Any player CAN perform The Ritual" and (2) "The Ritual MUST be
performed at least once in every Agoran week."} I suspect that the text is
not clear and therefore the four-part test must be applied. I believe it is
in the best interest of the game to impose criminal liability for the
violation of the Rules as much as possible. I also believe that it is
perfectly reasonable as a matter of text to impose criminal liability on
"any player" who by failing to act in "performing the ritual" (despite
being able to do so) leads to a violation of the command that "the ritual
must be performed".I note that we don't apply American law here, just like we don't apply Klingon law, unless it is specifically stated in the rules. Although American law principles may be applied as a part of the four part test, American law is of course occasionally atextual common law (or atextual statutory interpretation). Agora specifically provides that the text controls, precluding a test of "wrongness" in deciding whether something is a criminal violation in the first place, appearing nowhere in the text.. I call this CFJ because whatever the final decision of the Referee, it will be contested. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 2:34 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > This would be true if failing to perform The Ritual was itself harmful > (malum in se). However, it is wrong only because the rules say so (malum > prohibitum), and I see no reason why we should extent their prohibition > farther than they explicitly do so. It is also a principle of American > criminal law that if the statue is ambiguous it may be void for vagueness, > so this law, which doesn’t make it clear who is responsible, should be too > vague to impose a criminal penalty. > > -Aris > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:20 PM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 3, 2019, at 11:47 PM, Aris Merchant < > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Under the present conditions, > > > however, each player can quite reasonably claim that someone else > should > > > have performed The Ritual, and that it wasn’t *their* fault that it > > wasn’t > > > performed. Unless the rule explicitly states that the responsibility > > falls > > > on each player jointly and severally (i.e. it’s each player’s > > > responsibility to see that The Ritual is performed), there is no way to > > > prove from the text of the rules involved that this should be the case. > > > > I am delighted that you raised the idea of joint and several liability! > > That analogy occurred to me too; I didn’t mention it in my proto because > > it’s not a rules based concept. But it did perhaps influence my thinking > > somewhat. > > > > This Ritual stuff seems interestingly analogous to a specific situation > in > > which American law generally *does* recognize joint and several > liability: > > it is the situation where multiple careless or bad actors, each acting > > independently of one another, are each an independent legal cause of the > > entire harm that is suffered by the wronged party. For example, imagine > > that an elderly person walking on a sidewalk is carelessly bumped into > the > > road by a distracted pedestrian, and that the elderly person is then > struck > > by a speeding and reckless drunk driver, and e suffers very serious > > injuries. The distracted pedestrian and the drunk driver each were legal > > causes the entire harm—if either of them had been acting with due care, > > then the elderly person would not have been struck by the car. And the > > harm to the elderly person cannot be apportioned in any principled way as > > between the two wrongful actors. So American tort law holds them both > > jointly and severally liable, even though each of them individually would > > have caused NO harm if the other had not ALSO independently been acting > > wrongfully! See Restatement (2d) of Torts § 879 (“If the tortious > conduct > > of each of two or more persons is a legal cause of harm that cannot be > > apportioned, each is subject to liability for the entire harm, > irrespective > > of whether their conduct is concurring or consecutive.”). > > > > The Ritual strikes me as an analogous situation. Each player’s inaction > is > > a cause of the harm, and the harm that was caused cannot be apportioned > > among the players in a principled way. As a result, it is not unjust that > > each player is considered liable for the entire harm (jointly and > severally > > as it were), even though (as you said) “each player can quite reasonably > > claim that someone else should have performed The Ritual, and that it > > wasn’t *their* fault that it wasn’t performed.” Same with the distracted > > pedestrian and the drunk driver—each of them could say that the other > > should have done the prudent thing to avoid the accident, and that “it > > wasn’t their fault” the injury occurred. > > > > Here, each individual player should have done the prudent thing and > > performed the Ritual, and the fact that no other player performed it does > > not absolve the others of their moral responsibility. (I suppose that > point > > goes to rebut the supposed injustice of holding people liable, rather > than > > for whether they violated the Rules.) > -- >From V.J. Rada
