1094

======================================================================
                               CFJ 1094

  The Orders issued by Player Swann in the message entitled 'Coup
  d'état' were valid.

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

Judge:        Steve

Judgement:    TRUE

Eligible:     Antimatter, Blob, Chuck, elJefe, Harlequin, Kolja A.,
              Michael, Morendil, Murphy, Oerjan, Steve

Not eligible:
Caller:       Swann
Barred:       General Chaos
Disqualified: Crito (by choice)
On hold:      -

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

History:
  Called by Swann, Wed, 20 May 1998 18:05:48 -0400
  Assigned to Steve, Fri, 22 May 1998 09:12:33 +0100
  Judged TRUE, Thu, 28 May 1998 14:47:50 +1000
  Published, Fri, 29 May 1998 10:11:30 +0100

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

Judgement: TRUE

Reaons and arguments:

I accept Swann's arguments, which address the issue quite thoroughly.

In the matter of General Chaos' Motions, I am not sure if I am
permitted to take any action concerning them. This is is not due to
any uncertainty I have about the effect of Swann's later Orders (not
the ones that are the subject of this CFJ, but the ones contained in
his message "I didn't want to do this..."); I am satisfied that these
Orders are valid and that their effect is to prevent me from granting
any of G. Chaos' Motions. But Swann's Orders do not prevent me from
denying the Motions, My concern is rather about R1827:

      A Judge must either grant or deny each Motion forwarded to em by
      the Clerk of the Courts, within five days of when the Motion was
      received by the Judge.  E may, but need not, state the reasons
      for eir grant or denial.  A Judge grants or denies a Motion by
      sending eir determination on that Motion to the Clerk of the
      Courts, along with any reasons e chooses to provide.

General Chaos' Motions were sent to the Public Forum; they have never
been forwarded to me by the Clerk of the Courts. (CotC Michael is
technically in violation of R1023 for failing to do so.) Therefore I
do not think I am required to grant or deny them. Nevertheless, I
think I probably am permitted to deny them. Therefore, if I am
permitted by the Rules to do so, I hereby deny all three of General
Chaos' Motions.

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

(Caller's) Arguments:

Part I: What is an Order and was Swann's post a series of Orders?

>From Rule 1793;

     "An Order is a command, executed by a Player and directed to some
      entity requiring that entity to perform exactly one action, or
      to refrain from performing one or more actions."

In addition, Rule 1794 (qv) defines several classes of orders.  Of the
four classes so defined, the Orders Swann issued would be classified as
private, in that they were not issued under the authority of a Judge,
Justice, or an Officer.  Nowhere in the Rules-- and pointedly so given
the pragmatic intent of the Rules in question-- is there a Rule that
would prevent any communication fulfilling the criteria of Rule 1793
from being an Order, and therefore having the characteristics the Rules
ascribe to Orders in general.  This means that _any_ communication
fulfilling 1793's criteria is an Order.  Since the communication
referred to in the statement was a series of commands, executed by a
Player (Swann) to individual entities (Players notified through the
Public Forum, which by definition goes to every Player) requiring those
entities to refrain from performing one or more actions (i.e., refrain
from issuing any Order of a type not explicitly defined by the Rules,
and refrain from issuing any Order that the Player is not explicitly
empowered by the Rules to issue.)  Given the nature of the Rules
governing Orders, I believe that it is self-evident that the
communication involved was a series of Orders. (The Rules governing
Orders are written to provide for anyone to issue an Order, the only
legal recourse is the determination of the Order's validity.)

Part II: Were these Orders Valid?

The relevant portion from Rule 1796;

      In order to be proven valid by CFJ, the Rules must permit the
      Player who executed the Order in question to execute such an
      Order, that the execution of the Order must have been required
      by or permitted in the circumstances which existed at the time
      it was executed, and that the Order has not been rendered
      invalid by the operation of any other Rule.

Since these are private Orders of a type not explicitly defined in the
Rules (or, of a type only defined in 1794) this is the only part of the
Rules that defines the validity or invalidity of the given Orders.  So
we must determine three things;

Part II.i: Do the Rules permit Swann to execute an arbitrary private
           Order?

The oft-quoted Rule 166;

     "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Rule is permitted
      and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the Rules,
      which is permitted only when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly
      or implicitly permits it."

This is an often abused rule, especially in the case of scams like the
present one.  But, in the narrow case of the question we are asking, it
 is absolutely applicable.  1796 asks, do the Rules permit a Player to
issue this Order.  Rule 166 responds, forcefully, "barring any Rules to
the contrary, the answer is yes."  Are there any contrary rules?  There
are, in fact, none.  There is no Rule that prohibits any player from
issuing any private Order e deems appropriate.  (There is, in fact, very
little restriction on who can issue orders outside the definitions for
the various classes, which renders a strong sounding criteria
practically void of any real effect.)

Part II.ii: Do the Rules "require or permit" the execution of Swann's
            Orders in the circumstances which existed at the time they
            were executed?

First off, the strong criterion, "require" is mooted by the weaker
criterion, "permit."  By Rule 116, if the Rules don't prohibit the Order
in the given circumstances, they permit it.  Again, there is no explicit
restriction in the Rules upon the execution of an arbitrary private
Order.  There are a set of other "circumstances" that could trigger this
clause if they existed; They would be the operation of an SLC, *or a
prior Order.*  Neither of these apply to Swann in the given situation.
However, these "circumstances" now apply to all the Players subject to
Swann's Orders.

Part II.iii: Have Swann's Orders been rendered invalid by the operation
             of any other Rule?

This provision is mostly redundant, but is an opportunity to emphasize
again-- no Rule prohibited the execution of the Orders given by Swann,
and given the nature of the Rules governing Orders, and the existence of
Rule 116, the lack of such a prohibition is all that is required for
these (or any) Orders to have their effect.  In conclusion, it is an
obvious conclusion that the Orders given by Swann do indeed fulfill all
the criteria for validity as provided by Rule 1796.

Part III: Are such arbitrary Private Orders effective?  Do the Rules
          require the Players so Ordered to obey them?

>From Rule 1811;

     "Any entity who, while required by an Order to refrain from
      performing an action, performs the proscribed action while the
      Order is in effect commits the Crime of Contempt by Action, a
      Class C Crime."

This Rule clinches the idea that to violate these Orders is, in fact,
"breaking the Rules."  I believe that there is a strong Game Custom to
 the effect that committing an action defined as a Crime is "breaking
the Rules."  It is the pragmatic nature of the Order Rules that gives us
the above construction rather than, "A Player shall do what an order
tells em to, if e does not..."  Which makes little sense to a true
pragmatist.  It is my opinion that the above construction, and game
custom regarding Crimes, makes it "illegal" for someone to "break the
Rules" by failing to comply with a valid Order.  I include this and the
following section simply as an addendum to the Agoran community.

Part IV: The Caller's Beliefs and Intents;

I believe that my actions were and are legal.  I believe that my Orders
were and are valid, and I believe that those Orders will prevent similar
orders by other Players from being valid (by the reasoning I gave
re:1796 about the circumstances rendering an Order invalid).  I believe
that this loophole exists, and is a very grave one-- obviously in that
it gives the first player to exploit it absolute power to Order Players
around.  I believe that it is in the best interest of Agora that this
loophole be exploited in exactly the way I am exploiting it, rather than
in a slow evolution of micro-scams that could cause antipathy among
players and unbalance our economy.  Despite the power this grants me, I
intend to shortly propose a fix (which I will Order everyone to vote for
:) which will grant me some measure of recognition for what is, in fact,
a move that changes-- temporarily at least--  Agora into Imperial Nomic
XXX.  I also would like to express an admiration for the Order rules in
general, I do *not* think this loophole is a systemic problem.  It can
be alleviated by a rule that invalidates any Order not explicitly
defined in the Rules.  The order rules are a new paradigm, which can be
seen by the amendment numbers of zero on most of the Rules.  It is a
fact of nomic that new paradigms will be scammed.  In fact, the Order
Rule have done one thing *very* right IMO;

>From Rule 1796;

     "Furthermore, no Order may act to prevent or hinder its own
      appeal in any way, and any portion of an Order which has this
      effect is void and without force.

>From Rule 1830;

     "No valid Order to Compel may be directed to a Judge, or may
      require the performance of any duty required of Player by the
      virtue of that Player being a Judge.  Any such Order is invalid.
      Any CFJ alleging that a Judge has failed to perform a duty of a
      judicial nature shall be dismissed."

Both of these are very good safeguards.  Otherwise I could render this
situation practically insoluble by Ordering the Judge of this CFJ to
rule True and Order all subsequent Justices to Sustain that Judgement.
I don't believe I would walk through that door if it had been left open.
I'm not attempting to damage the game. However, the presence of these
rules prevent an evil player from placing the game in an impossible
situation.  If given a choice, I would much prefer that the loophole I
walked through remain open than replace it for the potential one
addressed here.

In conclusion, I promise a brief benevolent dictatorship followed by a
loophole fix that will leave a small monument to my reign.

As a wise person once said, "I urge calm."

Player Swann
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence:

Rule 1793/0 (Power=1)
Orders

      An Order is a command, executed by a Player and directed to some
      entity requiring that entity to perform exactly one action, or
      to refrain from performing one or more actions.

      An Order may be directed to the holder of an Office or other
      official position in eir capacity as that Office or other
      official position, and in this case if the Office or position
      changes hands before the Order is satisfied, the duty to abide
      by the Order automatically attaches to the new holder of that
      Office or position.

      Notwithstanding the foregoing, an Order, the purpose of which is
      to affect the operation of a prior Order, is as valid as any
      other Order, and is said to be directed at the prior Order it
      affects.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 1794/0 (Power=1)
Classes of Orders

      There are four classes of Order: Administrative, Judicial,
      Appellate, and Private.

      A Judicial Order is an Order executed by a Player while acting
      as a Judge.

      An Appellate Order is an Order executed by a Board of Appeals.

      An Administrative Order is an Order executed by the holder of an
      Office or other official position (such as the Speaker or the
      Recordkeepor of a Currency) other than that of a Judge or
      Justice, in the course of performing the duties of that Office
      or position.

      A Private Order is any other sort of Order.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 1796/0 (Power=1)
Validity of Orders

      All Orders executed in the manner prescribed by the Rules for
      their class and type are presumed valid and enforceable until
      proven otherwise by CFJ.

      In order to be proven valid by CFJ, the Rules must permit the
      Player who executed the Order in question to execute such an
      Order, that the execution of the Order must have been required
      by or permitted in the circumstances which existed at the time
      it was executed, and that the Order has not been rendered
      invalid by the operation of any other Rule.

      Furthermore, no Order may act to prevent or hinder its own
      appeal in any way, and any portion of an Order which has this
      effect is void and without force.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 116/0 (Power=3)
Permissibility of the Unprohibited

      Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Rule is permitted
      and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the Rules,
      which is permitted only when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly
      or implicitly permits it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 1811/0 (Power=1)
Contempt by Action

      Any entity who, while required by an Order to refrain from
      performing an action, performs the proscribed action while the
      Order is in effect commits the Crime of Contempt by Action, a
      Class C Crime.

      This Rule shall have no application with respect to any Order
      which has been adjudicated to be invalid, and the invalidity of
      the Order is a complete defense to a Criminal accusation made
      under this Rule.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1830/0 (Power=1)
No Compulsion of Judges

      No valid Order to Compel may be directed to a Judge, or may
      require the performance of any duty required of Player by the
      virtue of that Player being a Judge.  Any such Order is invalid.
      Any CFJ alleging that a Judge has failed to perform a duty of a
      judicial nature shall be dismissed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coup d'etat message:

> For future CFJ reference, this message is entitled 'Coup d'etat.'
>
> Note: To avoid the inevitable swamp of appeals, I have issued a CFJ
> on the validity of *all* these Orders.  I would request that the
> affected parties await the ruling of that CFJ, rather than increasing
> the CotC's caseload to redundantly determine a single issue.
>
> Player Swann, in accordance with authority vested in him by
> Rules 1793,1794 and 1796, issues the following private Orders to
> the following Players;
>
> I hereby Order and command Player Antimatter to refrain from;
>        issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined
>        in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order
>        that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute.
>
> I hereby Order and command Player Blob to refrain from;
>        issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined
>        in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order
>        that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute.
>
> I hereby Order and command Player Chuck to refrain from;
>        issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined
>        in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order
>        that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute.
>
> I hereby Order and command Player Citro to refrain from;
>        issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined
>        in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order
>        that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute.
>
> I hereby Order and command Player elJefe to refrain from;
>        issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined
>        in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order
>        that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute.
>
> I hereby Order and command Player General Chaos to refrain from;
>        issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined
>        in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order
>        that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute.
>
> I hereby Order and command Player Harlequin to refrain from;
>        issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined
>        in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order
>        that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute.
>
> I hereby Order and command Player Kolja A. to refrain from;
>        issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined
>        in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order
>        that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute.
>
> I hereby Order and command Player Michael to refrain from;
>        issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined
>        in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order
>        that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute.
>
> I hereby Order and command Player Morendil to refrain from;
>        issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined
>        in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order
>        that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute.
>
> I hereby Order and command Player Murphy to refrain from;
>        issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined
>        in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order
>        that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute.
>
> I hereby Order and command Player Oerjan to refrain from;
>        issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined
>        in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order
>        that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute.
>
> I hereby Order and command Player Steve to refrain from;
>        issuing any Order that is of a type not explicitly defined
>        in the Rules. E shall also refrain from issuing any Order
>        that the Rules do not explicitly empower em to execute.


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