This guide is quite different from others. It will not teach you how to "play" the game mechanically, but it will allow you to better understand how to argue your way through the IC legalities of PERP. It might be especially useful to PLPD players, but understanding the law is beneficial not only to those who enforce it, but also those who are subject to it.
This guide uses real-world legal techniques and logic. The author has a formal background in civil law systems. There might be a couple (dozen, hundred...) lawyers here hailing from Anglo-Saxon common law systems who will likely find some of the methods employed here objectionable. It is easy to argue PERP, an English speaking server set in a vaguely Anglo city should use common law in its legal aspects. I disagree, mainly for the reason that no courts exist in PERP, and case law therefore cannot be employed - while tools provided to us by civil law interpretations are sufficient to paint a comprehensive picture of a legal semi-system within the world of PERP. My conclusions are, in the end, in no way binding and you might simply disagree with them or come up with different interpretations. That's what law is, in the end.
The PPC does not offer us its axiology, or in other words does not propose a system of values governing it. This makes systemic interpretation difficult. In the lack of professing universal (legally universal, ie. guiding the application of the law in all cases) values such as "freedom", "rule of law" etc. one cannot simply assume they exist (regardless of their legal status in real life Western democracies). There is room for one to attempt to derive a legal axiology from the laws themselves, but I find it objectionable to first derive values via interpretation, then apply values via interpretation.
Section 1 ("Terminology") contains what one would refer to as a "legal dictionary". The definitions of the words and phrases within are not necessarily their common parlance definitions, but for the purpose of interpreting law, their Sec. 1 definitions (or "legal definitions) must be used. A contrario, (bear with me with the Latin, we'll get to it) any word which does not have its legal definition placed in Section 1 must be interpreted via common parlance (consequence of leges ab omnibus intelligenti debent).
All articles denoting a criminal offense (a "type") are structured (or can generally be reduced to being structured) as thus:
[Description of act] - [denotation of status as offense]
[Type of offense] - [Range of punishment]
Certain articles find themselves at odds with this structure and I believe them to be flawed (Sec. 7 art. 6 denotes a countertype to Sec. 7 art. 3-5 and not a type, for instance). In keeping with the status of this as a guide, I will refrain from further comment.
Leges ab omnibus intelligenti debent ("Law should be comprehensible to everyone")
Self-explanatory. Interpretations should not stray outside of what an average person reading the law comprehensively would think (and interpret). This is why, outside of legal definitions (which are explicitly not common parlance), common understandings of words should be used. In doubt, use an English dictionary.
In addition, the nature of law as such (ie. a written code) means we must use literal interpretation (ie. interpretation stemming from the text of the law itself) as jumping off point to any other interpretation. The average citizen knows the law to the extent to which it is written, not to the extent that purely systemic or functional interpretation leads it to conclude.
Lege non distinguente nec nostrum est distinguere ("It is not ours to [distinguish where] the law does not distinguish")
If a word, phrase or concept is employed in one way in any given point of the law, one should not interpret in such a way to introduce distinctions where the wording of the law does not clearly state them. A contratio, to ignore overt distinctions where the law states they exist is also not permissible. To do otherwise is to step into the shoes of the lawmaker, instead of ones who applies law.
Exclusion of per non est interpretation
If a path of interpretation leads us to conclude that any part of the written law is superfluous (ie. it could not exist and the interpretation would still be the same), it must be discarded. We assume that each statement in the law has a reason to exist. This is also a consequence of using literal interpretation as the base for any interpretation.
Exclusivity of numerus clausus.
This is a special case of a contrario lege non distinguente. If the law provides us with a catalogue or list of items, this list may not expanded in any case. Listing of items is assumed as express intent of the lawmaker to limit this list to only the items listed. This can only be broken by the lawmaker using phrases like "such as", "among others", etc. when introducing the list.
Exclusion of the use of analogy to expand criminal responsibility
Interpretation which uses analogy (per analogiam and derivative reasoning) to expand the circumstances in which one can be held legally responsible is forbidden. This is a very important result of leges ab omnibus intelligent debent. Permitting one to apply the law in such a way that one can be held responsible for actions which are not expressly forbidden would result in anarchic application. Nullum crimen sine lege - no crime may exist without a legal norm to create it.
To reason a minori ad maius is to reason that since X is forbidden, then Y, something that is "greater" than X, must also be forbidden. For instance, one could argue that since it is illegal to consume alcohol near schools, it is also illegal to consume alcohol inside schools.
The nature of this "greater" or "lesser" characteristic is highly dependent on the context of applying this reasoning. Notice that this is a form of analogy, and therefore cannot meaningfully expand criminal responsibility, generally speaking. Correct use of reasoning a minori ad maius is generally thought not to expand criminal responsibility, as the Y in any case should be contained within X (ie. the action is inside a subset of actions already forbidden).
Preface
You can likely skip this section if you don't have a legal background.This guide uses real-world legal techniques and logic. The author has a formal background in civil law systems. There might be a couple (dozen, hundred...) lawyers here hailing from Anglo-Saxon common law systems who will likely find some of the methods employed here objectionable. It is easy to argue PERP, an English speaking server set in a vaguely Anglo city should use common law in its legal aspects. I disagree, mainly for the reason that no courts exist in PERP, and case law therefore cannot be employed - while tools provided to us by civil law interpretations are sufficient to paint a comprehensive picture of a legal semi-system within the world of PERP. My conclusions are, in the end, in no way binding and you might simply disagree with them or come up with different interpretations. That's what law is, in the end.
The Paralake legal system at large
Intro
The IC legal system of PERP is composed entirely of a single document (the Paralake Penal Code or, moving forwards, the PPC) which has binding power over all citizens (players). There are no courts; the law is applied directly via officers of the PLPD. There are no other legal acts, although I will propose a interpretation contrary to that which in my opinion will discipline the legal system to the realities of a gaming server.The PPC does not offer us its axiology, or in other words does not propose a system of values governing it. This makes systemic interpretation difficult. In the lack of professing universal (legally universal, ie. guiding the application of the law in all cases) values such as "freedom", "rule of law" etc. one cannot simply assume they exist (regardless of their legal status in real life Western democracies). There is room for one to attempt to derive a legal axiology from the laws themselves, but I find it objectionable to first derive values via interpretation, then apply values via interpretation.
The structure of the PPC in detail
The PPC is composed of twelve sections, each containing articles, some articles containing paragraphs (not denoted but observable). While in server usage it is common to see laws being cited short form (ie. 5.5 PPC) I find it more illustrative to cite them long form (ie. Sec. 5 art. 5 PPC), my reasoning being that it helps better illustrate the connections within each section and the differences from other sections.Section 1 ("Terminology") contains what one would refer to as a "legal dictionary". The definitions of the words and phrases within are not necessarily their common parlance definitions, but for the purpose of interpreting law, their Sec. 1 definitions (or "legal definitions) must be used. A contrario, (bear with me with the Latin, we'll get to it) any word which does not have its legal definition placed in Section 1 must be interpreted via common parlance (consequence of leges ab omnibus intelligenti debent).
All articles denoting a criminal offense (a "type") are structured (or can generally be reduced to being structured) as thus:
[Description of act] - [denotation of status as offense]
[Type of offense] - [Range of punishment]
Certain articles find themselves at odds with this structure and I believe them to be flawed (Sec. 7 art. 6 denotes a countertype to Sec. 7 art. 3-5 and not a type, for instance). In keeping with the status of this as a guide, I will refrain from further comment.
Concept - PPC as subject to server rules
Even though IC the PPC is the only legal act in force, I propose that the PPC should always be interpreted in the spirit of the server rules, and never contrary to them. As an IC act, unless the server rules directly defer their norms to it, the server rules are de facto an act with higher power than the PPC. It would not be permissible to interpret the PPC such that a server rule is broken. This should always be kept in mind while considering your strategy.Overarching rules of interpretation
These rules find themselves here not because of their axiological basis (see the intro), but because I believe them to be universal good practices in legal interpretation, which find their base in logic, and not values. Keeping them in mind will allow you to make the law make sense.Leges ab omnibus intelligenti debent ("Law should be comprehensible to everyone")
Self-explanatory. Interpretations should not stray outside of what an average person reading the law comprehensively would think (and interpret). This is why, outside of legal definitions (which are explicitly not common parlance), common understandings of words should be used. In doubt, use an English dictionary.
In addition, the nature of law as such (ie. a written code) means we must use literal interpretation (ie. interpretation stemming from the text of the law itself) as jumping off point to any other interpretation. The average citizen knows the law to the extent to which it is written, not to the extent that purely systemic or functional interpretation leads it to conclude.
Lege non distinguente nec nostrum est distinguere ("It is not ours to [distinguish where] the law does not distinguish")
If a word, phrase or concept is employed in one way in any given point of the law, one should not interpret in such a way to introduce distinctions where the wording of the law does not clearly state them. A contratio, to ignore overt distinctions where the law states they exist is also not permissible. To do otherwise is to step into the shoes of the lawmaker, instead of ones who applies law.
Exclusion of per non est interpretation
If a path of interpretation leads us to conclude that any part of the written law is superfluous (ie. it could not exist and the interpretation would still be the same), it must be discarded. We assume that each statement in the law has a reason to exist. This is also a consequence of using literal interpretation as the base for any interpretation.
Exclusivity of numerus clausus.
This is a special case of a contrario lege non distinguente. If the law provides us with a catalogue or list of items, this list may not expanded in any case. Listing of items is assumed as express intent of the lawmaker to limit this list to only the items listed. This can only be broken by the lawmaker using phrases like "such as", "among others", etc. when introducing the list.
Exclusion of the use of analogy to expand criminal responsibility
Interpretation which uses analogy (per analogiam and derivative reasoning) to expand the circumstances in which one can be held legally responsible is forbidden. This is a very important result of leges ab omnibus intelligent debent. Permitting one to apply the law in such a way that one can be held responsible for actions which are not expressly forbidden would result in anarchic application. Nullum crimen sine lege - no crime may exist without a legal norm to create it.
Legal reasoning
The following is an example list of "legal reasonings", or logical rules to be applied when interpreting law. Their correct use enables one to get more out of the law than is expressly written in legal documents.Reasoning per analogiam
The analogy is perhaps the simplest reasoning one can use. Given that X scenario is regulated and Y scenario is sufficiently alike to X scenario, Y scenario should be regulated as X is. This is most commonly used to fix "holes" (a contentious topic in jurisprudence on its own) in legislation, ie. situations that the lawmaker did not predict but which would have been regulated had they been predicted. Keep in mind that it is not permissible to use this to argue that a person should be held criminally responsible due to the similarity of their actions to actions described in the PPC (see above).Reasoning a contrario
A contrario can be understood to mean the opposite of an analogy. Given that X is forbidden, Y must be permitted; given that X is allowed to be performed on objects ABC, objects which are not ABC can not have X performed on them. The nature of this reasoning - deriving from what is not in the text - can be quite shaky. It should be used with care.Reasoning a fortiori
A fortiori is derived from analogy and is based on the relationship between two properties or objects and takes the form of two different reasonings:- a maiori ad minus
- a minori ad maius
To reason a minori ad maius is to reason that since X is forbidden, then Y, something that is "greater" than X, must also be forbidden. For instance, one could argue that since it is illegal to consume alcohol near schools, it is also illegal to consume alcohol inside schools.
The nature of this "greater" or "lesser" characteristic is highly dependent on the context of applying this reasoning. Notice that this is a form of analogy, and therefore cannot meaningfully expand criminal responsibility, generally speaking. Correct use of reasoning a minori ad maius is generally thought not to expand criminal responsibility, as the Y in any case should be contained within X (ie. the action is inside a subset of actions already forbidden).
