Received: by 10.142.225.10 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:44:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <6bf32280802071344q2d163fcek713c53282c4704b2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:44:43 -0500
From: comex <comexk@gmail.com>
To: agora-business@agoranomic.org
Subject: senatus consultum ultimum
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Delivered-To: comexk@gmail.com
This message resolves the Agoran decision of whether to ratify the
Full Logical Ruleset I published in my message datestamped Fri, 1 Feb
2008 18:37:34 -0800 and quoted below (a decision that I initiated in
that same message).
I'm sorry if you didn't get that message. I sent it from my
unsubscribed Yahoo mail account to agora-business, so the list gobbled
it. But, by CFJ 1314 the message was valid anyway.
Valid votes:
comex: SUPPORT (implicit)
The option selected by Agora is APPROVED. I hereby ratify the
official document published in the above-referenced and below-quoted
message (between THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET and END OF THE FULL LOGICAL
RULESET) whose scope is the Full Logical Ruleset, part of the
Rulekeepor's Monthly report.
Ummm, I might have made a mistake in my FLR. You should check it out.
Specifically it looks like I accidentally added a Rule 9999,
"Imperator".
--- original message quoted below ---
Received: from [69.124.51.62] by web56301.mail.re3.yahoo.com via HTTP;
Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:37:34 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/818.31 YahooMailWebService/0.7.162
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 18:37:34 -0800 (PST)
From: "dip per" <comatxik@yahoo.com>
Subject: test
To: agora-business@agoranomic.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 215503
THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
Last proposal with recorded effect on this ruleset: 5417
Last change to this ruleset: by proposal
Rule ID numbers:
highest orderly: 2195
disorderly: none
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics
Current total number of rules: 108
Power distribution:
1 with Power=4
26 with Power=3
32 with Power=2
5 with Power=1.7
5 with Power=1.5
39 with Power=1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Index of Categories
* The Game of Agora
* Rules
* Players
* Definitions
* Offices
* Agoran Decisions
* Proposals
* Adjudication
* Patent Titles and Degrees
* Contract Law
* Frankenstein's Monster
* Foreign Relations
* Trophies
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Index of Rules
* The Game of Agora
Rule 101: Agoran Rights and Privileges
Rule 2125: Regulation Regulations
Rule 1586: Definition and Continuity of Entities
Rule 1688: Power
Rule 2140: Power Controls Mutability
Rule 2149: Truthfulness
Rule 2186: Victory
Rule 2110: Win by Paradox
Rule 2177: The Senate
* Rules
Rule 2141: Role and Attributes of Rules
Rule 217: Interpreting the Rules
Rule 1482: Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power
Rule 1030: Precedence between Rules with Equal Power
Rule 105: Rule Changes
Rule 1681: The Logical Rulesets
Rule 1051: The Rulekeepor
* Players
Rule 869: How to Join and Leave Agora
Rule 2144: Limited Partnerships
Rule 2139: The Registrar
Rule 1789: Cantus Cygneus
Rule 2130: Activity
* Definitions
Rule 478: Fora
Rule 2170: Who Am I?
Rule 754: Definition Definitions
Rule 2152: Mother, May I?
Rule 1023: Common Definitions
Rule 2161: ID Numbers
Rule 2146: Indices
Rule 2162: Switches
Rule 2150: Personhood
Rule 2166: Assets
Rule 2181: The Accountor
Rule 1728: Dependent Actions
Rule 2124: Methods of Dependent Actions
Rule 1769: Holidays
Rule 1750: Read the Ruleset Week
* Offices
Rule 1006: Offices
Rule 2154: Replacing Officers
Rule 2138: The International Associate Director of Personnel
Rule 2143: Official Reports
Rule 1551: Ratification
Rule 2160: Deputisation
* Agoran Decisions
Rule 693: Agoran Decisions
Rule 107: Initiating Agoran Decisions
Rule 2137: The Assessor
Rule 683: Voting on Agoran Decisions
Rule 2127: Conditional Votes
Rule 2168: Extending the voting period
Rule 208: Resolving Agoran decisions
Rule 955: Determining the Will of Agora
Rule 879: Quorum
Rule 2034: Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges
* Proposals
Rule 106: Adopting Proposals
Rule 2153: Interest Index
Rule 1607: The Promotor
Rule 1450: Separation of Powers
Rule 1698: The Proposal System Is Protected
Rule 1950: Voting on Democratic Proposals
Rule 2156: Voting on Ordinary Proposals
Rule 2134: Win by Clout
Rule 2126: Ribbons
Rule 2194: Notes
Rule 2142: Support Democracy
Rule 2019: Prerogatives
Rule 2188: Win by Proposal
* Adjudication
Rule 991: Judicial Cases Generally
Rule 2175: Judicial Retraction and Excess
Rule 1868: Judge Assignment Generally
Rule 1871: The Standing Court
Rule 2157: Judicial Panels
Rule 2158: Judicial Questions
Rule 2164: Judicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer
Rule 591: Inquiry Cases
Rule 1504: Criminal Cases
Rule 2190: Crime Doesn't Pay
Rule 2169: Equity Cases
Rule 911: Appeal Cases
Rule 2171: Rules Viewed as Binding Agreement
* Patent Titles and Degrees
Rule 649: Patent Titles
Rule 1922: Defined Regular Patent Titles
Rule 1367: Degrees
* Contract Law
Rule 1742: Contracts
Rule 2178: Public Contracts
Rule 2173: The Notary
Rule 2191: Pledges
Rule 2145: Partnerships
Rule 2174: Aliens
Rule 2136: Contests
Rule 2179: Points
Rule 2187: Win by High Score
Rule 2180: Locations
* Frankenstein's Monster
Rule 2193: The Monster
Rule 2192: The Mad Scientist
* Foreign Relations
Rule 2135: Advertising
Rule 402: Identity of the Speaker
Rule 103: Role of the Speaker
Rule 2184: Foreign communications
Rule 2148: The Ambassador
Rule 2172: Acting on Behalf of Agora
Rule 2189: Win by Extortion
Rule 2147: Protectorates
Rule 2159: Protective Decrees
* Trophies
Rule 2105: The Map of Agora
Rule 1727: Happy Birthday
Rule 104: First Speaker
Rule 2151: Agoran Arms
Rule 2029: Town Fountain
Rule 9999: Imperator
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Rules are listed as follows. "nnnn" is the rule's ID number,
mandated by rule 2141 and governed by rule 2161. "r" is the revision
number, which is not defined by the rules. "p" is the rule's power,
as defined by rule 1688 and governed by rule 2141. Rule titles are
governed by rule 2141.]
Rule nnnn/r (Power=p)
Title of Rule
Text of rule.
[Annotations in square brackets are unofficial, added at the
rulekeepor's discretion. These annotations have no legal force.]
History:
Historical annotations required by rule 1681.
An ellipsis (...) indicates that the history is incomplete.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================================================
The Game of Agora
A category concerning this nomic generally, constitutional
matters, and relationships between the most fundamental nomic
entities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 101/7 (Power=3)
Agoran Rights and Privileges
The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or
privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement
or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or
remove a person's defined rights. A person's defined privileges
are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding
agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any
rule which would allow restrictions of a person's rights or
privileges.
i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.
ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is
not regulated.
iii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to
resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable
expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved.
Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration
of any judicial determination that e should be punished.
iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to
a binding agreement. The absence of a person's explicit,
willful consent shall be considered a refusal.
v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by
an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has
not had the reasonable opportunity to review.
vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.
vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than
once for any single action or inaction.
viii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than
continue to play.
Please treat Agora right good forever.
[CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.]
[CFJ 825 (called 7 November 1995): Players must obey the Rules even if
no Rule says so.]
[CFJ 1848 (called 21 December 2007): The game must operate according
to the rules that prevail at the time, and not attempt to incorporate
any retroactive changes made in the future.]
[CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all those
who play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they
have the rule-defined status of "player".]
[CFJ 1132: A Player failing to perform a duty required by the Rules
within a reasonable time may be in violation of the Rules, even if the
Rules do not provide a time limit for the performance of that duty.]
[CFJ 1488 (called 11 February 2004): Engineering a situation in which
other players are unable to follow a particular rule is not in itself
a violation of that rule.]
[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): The requirement that "no
interpretation of Agoran law may abridge ... a person's defined
rights" means that it must be feasible, given the practical limits of
Agoran evidence-gathering, to remain reasonably sure that a person's
defined rights are not being limited.]
[CFJ 1768 (called 22 October 2007): The right of participation in the
fora is the right to participate in them for their intended purposes,
and is not necessarily infringed by regulations regarding the manner
and type of participation.]
[CFJ 1738 (called 29 August 2007): An obligation on a player to not
publish statements that e believes are true would conflict with the
right of participation in the fora.]
[CFJ 1753 (called 28 September 2007): The right to cease playing
applies only to those who have the rule-defined status of "player",
not to those who play the game in the broader sense without having
that official status.]
History:
Initial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995
Amended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999
Amended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005
Amended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Amended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007
Amended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2125/1 (Power=3)
Regulation Regulations
An action is regulated if:
(a) the action is prohibited;
(b) the rules indicate that if certain conditions are satisfied,
then some player is permitted to perform the action;
(c) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information
for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor; or
(d) the action would, as part of its effect, make it impossible
to make arbitrary modifications to the rules by any
combinations of actions by players.
History:
Created by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(1) by Proposal 5235 (Goddess Eris), 3 October 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1586/3 (Power=2)
Definition and Continuity of Entities
Two Rule-defined entities CANNOT have the same name or nickname.
If the Rules defining an entity are repealed or amended such
that they no longer define that entity, then that entity and its
properties cease to exist.
If the Rules defining an entity are amended such that they still
define that entity but with different properties, then that
entity and its properties continue to exist to whatever extent
is possible under the new definitions.
[CFJ 1807 (called 25 November 2007): Rule-defined entities include
pending timed events, which can therefore occur under modified rules
even if the events that originally triggered them would not trigger
them under the new rules.]
History:
Created by Proposal 2481, Feb. 16 1996
Amended(1) by Proposal 2795 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial
Amended(2) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000
Amended(3) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1688/4 (Power=3)
Power
The power of an entity is a non-negative rational number.
An instrument is an entity with positive power.
The power of an entity cannot be set or modified except as
stipulated by the rules. All entities have power zero except
where specifically allowed by the rules.
A rule that secures a change (hereafter the securing rule)
thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform that change except as
allowed by an instrument with power greater than or equal to the
change's power threshold. This threshold defaults to the
securing rule's power, but CAN be lowered as allowed by that
rule.
History:
Created by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997
Amended(1) by Proposal 3994 (harvel), Apr. 20 2000
Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(3) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2140/0 (Power=3)
Power Controls Mutability
No entity with power below the power of this rule can
(a) cause an entity to have power greater than its own.
(b) adjust the power of an instrument with power greater than
its own.
(c) modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with
power greater than its own. A "substantive" aspect of
an instrument is any aspect that affects the instrument's
operation.
History:
Created by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2149/8 (Power=1)
Truthfulness
A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e believes
that in doing so e is telling the truth. Merely quoting a false
statement does not constitute making it for the purposes of this
rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause, or other qualifier
attached to a statement constitutes part of the statement for
the purposes of this rule; the truth or falsity of the whole is
what is significant.
[CFJ 1739 (called 29 August 2007): A quotation can result in a
violation of rule 2149, depending on the context of the rest of the
message.]
[CFJ 1849 (called 21 December 2007): Violation of rule 2149 can occur
without any intent to misdirect.]
History:
Created by Proposal 4990 (Zefram), 6 June 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5075 (Zefram), 18 July 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5129 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 5147 (comex), 29 August 2007
Amended(5) by Proposal 5179 (Zefram), 29 August 2007
Amended(6) by Proposal 5180 (Zefram), 29 August 2007
Amended(7) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007
Amended(8) by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2186/0 (Power=2)
Victory
Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions exist only as defined
by rules. Defining these things is secured.
A win announcement is a correct announcement explicitly labeled
as a win announcement.
When one or more persons satisfy at least one Winning Condition
and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, all such persons win
the game. This is the only way to win the game, rules to the
contrary notwithstanding.
Each Winning Condition should (if needed) specify a cleanup
procedure to prevent an arbitrary number of wins arising from
essentially the same conditions. When one or more persons win
the game, for each Winning Condition satisfied by at least one
of those persons, its cleanup procedure occurs.
History:
Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),
16 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2110/4 (Power=3)
Win by Paradox
Upon a judicial finding that the possibility or legality of a
rule-defined action (actual or hypothetical, but not arising
from that case itself, and not occurring after the initiation of
that case) is UNDECIDABLE, the initiator satisfies the Winning
Condition of Paradox.
Cleanup procedure: Each winner satisfying this Winning
Condition SHALL, as soon as possible, make a reasonable attempt
to resolve the paradox.
History:
Created by Proposal 4781 (Sherlock), 3 June 2005
Amended(1) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5195 (Zefram), 6 September 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5297 (Murphy), 22 November 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),
16 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2177/5 (Power=2)
The Senate
A Senator is any Player who has been registered continuously for
the immediately preceding sixty days. The collection of
Senators is the Senate. The Registrar's report includes a list
of all Senators.
A Senator CAN call an Emergency Session with 2 Senate
supporters, provided no other emergency session existed at any
time in the preceding 48 hours. An emergency session lasts for
21 days after being called. The Assessor's report includes the
most recent date on which an emergency session was called.
The roll call of an emergency session is the set of senators at
the time the emergency session was called. During emergency
session, the previous definition of senator does not apply;
instead, any player who is a member of the roll call is a
senator. The Assessor's report includes the roll call of the
most recent emergency session.
During emergency session, any Senator CAN declare a filibuster
on a proposal in its voting period, with 2 supporting Senators,
provided no filibuster has been declared on that proposal in the
past. Any Senator CAN end a filibuster on a proposal with 4
supporting Senators.
A proposal that ends its voting period in filibuster has a
quorum of the number of eligible voters plus 1, rules to the
contrary notwithstanding.
When an emergency session begins, all non-Senators' postures
become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while
the session lasts.
History:
Created by Proposal 5309 (Goethe), 24 November 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5331 (root), 5 December 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5332 (root), 5 December 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007
Amended(5) by Proposal 5357 (root; disi.), 16 December 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================================================
Rules
A category concerning the rules of the game, including the
processes of changing the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2141/1 (Power=3)
Role and Attributes of Rules
A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern
the game generally. A rule's content takes the form of
a text, and is unlimited in scope. In particular, a rule
may define in-game entities and regulate their behaviour,
make instantaneous changes to the state of in-game entities,
prescribe or proscribe certain player behaviour, modify the
rules or the application thereof, or do any of these things
in a conditional manner.
Every rule has power between one and four inclusive. It is
not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range.
Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.
Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a
rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor shall assign
a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.
For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
substantive aspects of the rule.
[CFJ 1498 (called 12 April 2004): A rule's title is not strictly a
name for the rule, and so rule titles are not subject to the
uniqueness requirement on names of rule-defined entities.]
History:
Created by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 217/6 (Power=3)
Interpreting the Rules
When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules
takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense,
past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the
game.
[CFJ 1139: Interpretations [judgements at the time of CFJ 1139] need
not necessarily accord with the reasoning and arguments of Judges or
Justices given in past CFJs.]
History:
Initial Mutable Rule 217, Jun. 30 1993
Amended(1) by Proposal 1635, Jul. 25 1995
Infected and amended(2) by Rule 1454, Aug. 7 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 2507, Mar. 3 1996
Amended(4) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005
Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Retitled by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(6) by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1482/2 (Power=3)
Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power
In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with
the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower
Power.
No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule
to stipulate any other means of determining precedence
between Rules of unequal Power. This applies to changes by
the enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form.
This Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit
such a change to the Ruleset.
[CFJ 1103 (called 18 August 1998): In the case of conflict between
Rules of unequal Power, the higher Powered Rule cannot defer to the
lower Powered Rule, unless the higher Powered Rule takes precedence
over Rule 1482.]
[CFJ 858 (called 15 February 1996): If a low-Power [low-MI at the time
of Judgement of CFJ 858] Rule attempts to define a term used in a Rule
of higher Power to mean something other than its ordinary English
meaning, that may or may not constitute a conflict; whether it does
must be decided on a case-by-case basis.]
History:
Created by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995
Infected, but not Amended by Rule 1454, Dec. 2 1995
Amended(1) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic
(unattributed)
Amended(2) by Proposal 4942 (Zefram), 3 May 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1030/6 (Power=3)
Precedence between Rules with Equal Power
If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one
another, then the Rule with the lower ID number takes
precedence.
If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of
itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or
takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such
provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining
precedence.
If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their
precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for
determining precedence relations, then the determinations of
the precedence-determining Rule shall supercede the numerical
method for determining precedence.
If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another
or defer to one another, then the numerical method again
governs.
[CFJ 1104 (called 20 August 1998): The presence in a Rule of deference
clause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does not
prevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only how the
Rule says that conflict is to be resolved when it does arise.]
[CFJs 1114-1115 (called 27 January 1999): This Rule is to be applied
to resolve Rule conflicts on a case-by-case basis; just because a Rule
is inapplicable in one situation due to conflict with a Rule of higher
precedence does not mean that the Rule is nullified in all cases.]
History:
Initial Mutable Rule 212, Jun. 30 1993
Amended by Proposal 1030, Sep. 15 1994
Amended by Rule 750, Sep. 15 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1527, Mar. 24 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 2520, Mar. 10 1996
Mutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2763 (Steve), Nov. 30 1996
Amended(4) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic
(unattributed)
Amended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Amended(6) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 105/3 (Power=3)
Rule Changes
Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,
as part of its effect,
(a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum
of the power specified by the enacting instrument,
defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not
specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules.
The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new
rule, which if present shall prevail. The ID number of the
new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument; any
attempt to so specify is null and void.
(b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a
rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record
of it.
(c) amend the text of a rule.
(d) retitle a rule.
(e) change the power of a rule.
A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes
that change to be void and without effect. A variation in
whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing
rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this
rule, but any other variation does.
This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be
created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can
become a rule or cease to be a rule.
[CFJ 1499 (called 20 April 2004), CFJ 1623 (called 1 April 2007): If a
low-power rule states that an officer can repeal the rule under
certain circumstances, then the rule cannot actually be repealed by
this process, because the officer, not being an instrument, is
categorically incapable of performing rule changes; this is different
from the situation where a rule can be triggered to repeal itself.]
[CFJ 708 (called October 1994): An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is
not a legal Rule Change.]
[CFJ 1625 (called 1 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a rule to
amend by both number and title, and the number and title given
identify different rules, this constitutes ambiguity that nullifies
the attempted rule change.]
[CFJ 1644 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form
of words "Change the power of rule NNNN to P and amend it by XXX.",
where XXX specifies a text change, this constitutes two attempted rule
changes.]
[CFJ 1638 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form
of words "Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Amend rule NNNN by YYY.", this
constitutes two separate attempts at rule changes, even though both
attempt to amend the same rule.]
[CFJ 1642 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form
of words "Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Further amend rule NNNN by YYY.",
where both XXX and YYY specify text changes, this constitutes two
separate attempts at rule changes.]
[CFJ 1640 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form
of words "Amend rule NNNN by XXX and YYY.", where both XXX and YYY
specify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule
change, even though it is specified in two parts.]
[CFJ 1641 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form
of words "Amend rule NNNN by XXX and by YYY.", where both XXX and YYY
specify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule
change, even though it is specified in two parts.]
[CFJ 1643 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a single
rule amendment in two parts, and one of the parts is not possible but
the other is possible, the possible part is applied alone.]
History:
Created by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007
Renumbered from 2131 to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007
Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007
Retitled by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1681/12 (Power=1)
The Logical Rulesets
There is a format of the ruleset known as the Short Logical
Ruleset (SLR). In this format, each rule is assigned to a
category, and the rules are grouped according to their category.
Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between
categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty
categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.
The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule's ID
number, revision number, power, title, and text.
The Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any
additional information in the SLR, except that which increases
the readability of the SLR.
There is a format of the ruleset known as the Full Logical
Ruleset (FLR). In this format, rules are assigned to the same
category and presented in the same order as in the SLR. The FLR
must contain all the information required to be in the SLR, and
any historical annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to
record.
The Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information
which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the
FLR.
Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor shall
record a historical annotation to the rule indicating:
a) The type of change.
b) The date on which the change took effect.
c) The mechanism that specified the change.
d) If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that
proposal's ID number, author, and co-author(s) (if any).
History:
Created by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997
Amended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial
(unattributed)
Amended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997
Amended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998
Amended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999
Amended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000
Amended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(7) by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005
Amended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Amended(10) by Proposal 5006 (Zefram), 18 June 2007
Amended(11) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(12) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1051/18 (Power=1)
The Rulekeepor
The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for
maintaining the text of the rules of Agora.
The Rulekeepor's Weekly report includes the Short Logical
Ruleset. The Rulekeepor's Monthly report includes the Full
Logical Ruleset.
[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Rulekeepor's duties are:
* manage ID numbers of rules (rule 2141)
* assign title to rule (rule 2141)
* report ruleset in two formats (rule 1051)
* manage Logical Ruleset categories (rule 1681)
* annotate the Full Logical Ruleset (rule 1681)
* maintain historical rule annotations (rule 1681)]
History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 2048, Dec. 19 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996
Amended(5) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996
Null-Amended(6) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996
Amended(7) by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), Nov. 7 1996, substantial
Infected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996,
substantial (unattributed)
Amended(9) by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan. 15 1997, substantial
Amended(10) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial
Amended(11) by Proposal 3675 (Michael), Jan. 30 1998
Amended(12) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999
Amended(13) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999
Amended(14) by Proposal 3882 (harvel), Jul. 21 1999
Amended(15) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999
Amended(16) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000
Amended(17) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002
Amended(18) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================================================
Players
A category concerning players, including the processes of
becoming and ceasing to be players, and game-relevant aspects of
players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 869/25 (Power=1)
How to Join and Leave Agora
Citizenship is an entity switch with values Unregistered
(default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is
an entity whose citizenship is Registered.
The verb "to be registered" means to become a player (i.e., to
have one's citizenship changed from Unregistered to Registered),
and the verb "to be deregistered" means to cease to be a player
(i.e., to have one's citizenship changed from Registered to
Unregistered). Where the verb "to register" or "to deregister"
is used without an explicit direct object, the action is
implicitly reflexive.
A person CAN register, unless prevented by the rules, by
announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests
registration, or requests permission to register.
A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register
within thirty days after doing so.
A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class
person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.
[CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the
Rules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.]
[CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear
desire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for
registration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner
stipulated by the rules.]
History:
Created by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993
Amended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994
Amended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996
Amended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996
Amended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial
Amended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998
Amended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999
Amended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000
Amended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001
Amended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001
Amended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003
Amended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003
Amended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003
Amended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005
Amended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005
Amended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005
Amended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007
Amended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007
Amended(20) by Proposal 5011 (Zefram), 24 June 2007
Amended(21) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(22) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(23) by Proposal 5117 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007
Amended(24) by Proposal 5156 (Zefram), 29 August 2007
Amended(25) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2144/8 (Power=1)
Limited Partnerships
A partnership SHALL NOT register if its basis is the same as
that of any player. Whenever a judgement of GUILTY is assigned
in a criminal case alleging that a partnership has violated this
rule, the judge SHOULD assign an EXILE judgement to the question
on sentencing in that case.
If a registered partnership has the same basis as another
player, any player CAN deregister it with Agoran Consent.
History:
Created by Proposal 4971 (Human Point Two), 23 May 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5022 (Murphy), 25 June 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5039 (Zefram), 28 June 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007
Amended(5) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007
Amended(6) by Proposal 5375 (root), 1 January 2008
Amended(7) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008
Amended(8) by Proposal 5400 (woggle; disi.), 16 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2139/1 (Power=1)
The Registrar
The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for
keeping track of players.
The Registrar's report includes, for each player:
a) Information sufficient to identify and contact em.
b) The date on which e most recently became a player.
[CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname
by announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current
nickname of another player.]
[CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname,
previously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is
successful, but does not displace the target's existing name or
nickname.]
[CFJ 1489 (called 11 February 2004): Watchers are not a rule-defined
element of the game.]
[CFJ 1420 (called 17 December 2002): The list of watchers, customarily
published with the registrar's report, is part of the game state, even
though it is not mentioned in the rules and no one is obliged to track
or publish it.]
[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Registrar's duties are:
* report senators (rule 2177)
* track citizenship (rule 869)
* report players' identity and contact details (rule 2139)
* report registration dates (rule 2139)
* report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)
* track player activity and report change dates (rule 2130)
* track forum publicity (rule 478)
* report fora (rule 478)
* change the publicity of a forum (rule 478)]
History:
Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1789/3 (Power=1)
Cantus Cygneus
Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously
by the Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part
of it, e may submit a document to the Clerk of the Courts,
clearly labeled a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and
expressing eir reproach for those who e feels have treated em so
badly.
As soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the Clerk
of the Courts shall publish this document along with a Writ of
Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player
to be deregistered and instructing the Registrar to note the
method of deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar
Reports, as long as the Player remains deregistered.
The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and
the notation in the Registrar's Report will ensure that,
henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of
FAGE.
[CFJ 1594 (called 16 December 2006): Players can be deregistered due
to this rule even if there is no Registrar.]
History:
Created by Proposal 3705 (Crito), Mar. 9 1998
Amended(1) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001
Amended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001
Amended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2130/9 (Power=1)
Activity
Activity is a player switch with values Active (default) and
Inactive, tracked by the Registrar. The Registrar's report
includes the date on which each non-Active player's activity
last changed.
A player CAN flip eir activity by announcement. "To go on hold"
is to become Inactive; "to come off hold" is to become Active.
A player CAN flip another player's activity to Inactive without
objection.
A player who has been continuously Inactive for at least three
months CAN be deregistered by any other player without
objection.
History:
Created by Proposal 4893 (Murphy), 12 February 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 4966 (Zefram), 3 June 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 4967 (Zefram), 3 June 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 4985 (Zefram), 6 June 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 4986 (Zefram), 6 June 2007
Amended(5) by Proposal 5004 (Zefram), 13 June 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(6) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(7) by Proposal 5116 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007
Amended(8) by Proposal 5258 (AFO), 18 October 2007
Amended(9) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================================================
Definitions
A category of definitions of terms and procedures that are
widely used and do not readily fall into any other category.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 478/22 (Power=3)
Fora
Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of
any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player
shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.
Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and
Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.
The Registrar's report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign
publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive
messages there.
The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without
objection as long as:
(a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and
(b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which
the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all
existing public fora.
Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each
public forum.
A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum
or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of
intent to be public. A player "publishes" or "announces"
something by sending a public message.
Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
announcement", a player performs that action by announcing that
e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is
performed at the time date-stamped on that message.
[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into
multiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game
purposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the
single message.]
[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is
obligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending
something to the PF.]
[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can
receive the PF.]
[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is
not necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]
[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is "received" when the
message enters the recipient's normal technical domain of control,
whether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared
machine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not
control it).]
[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and
elsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text 'with the
clear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal'
(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the
collection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]
[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum
is rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been
sent via a public forum.]
[CFJ 1888 (called 31 January 2008): Sending a message to a Discussion
Forum, or other mailing list except for a Public Forum, does not
qualify as sending it to all players.]
[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in
the message body; the subject line is insignificant.]
[CFJ 1784 (called 5 November 2007): An undescriptive or misleading
subject line does not deprive the message body of effect.]
[CFJ 1880 (called 22 January 2008): A phrase that would, in the
message body, cancel the effect of the rest of the message, does not
have such an effect if it appears in the subject line.]
[CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is
a different action from publishing the whole message.]
[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of "publishing" or
"announcing" is accomplished when the message has left the sender's
technical domain of control, indicated by one of the "Received:"
headers.]
[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature
can't directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its
members sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement
says so.]
[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have
public messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that
allows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific
approval.]
[CFJs 1833-1834 (called 18 December 2007): A player can, by
contractual arrangement, grant another player the capacity to act by
announcement on eir behalf.]
[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one
wishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can
constitute an announcement that performs that action.]
[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed
by announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case
that would result from that action does not constitute performing the
action.]
[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):
Saying "I do X 1000 times", where X is something that can be done by
announcement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of "I do
X", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,
because it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances
of "I do X".]
[CFJ 1774 (called 1 November 2007): Saying "I do X 10000 times", where
X is something that can be done by announcement, does not necessarily
achieve 10000 instances of X, if writing out 10000 instances of "I do
X" would be a substantial effort such that using the shorthand is
abusive. The presumption is in favour of the shorthand being
successful.]
[CFJ 1775 (called 1 November 2007): If an announcement of the form "I
do X N times" is not be acceptable shorthand for N instances of "I do
X", then the announcement is completely nullified, and does not have
the effect of M instances of "I do X" for any non-zero repeat count
M.]
[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will
accomplish an action even if its author believed the action was
impossible.]
[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): A message-based action cannot be
retroactive.]
History:
Created by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993
Amended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995
Amended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995
Amended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996
Amended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial
Amended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial
Amended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial
Amended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999
Amended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001
Amended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002
Amended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003
Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005
Amended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005
Amended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005
Amended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007
Amended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007
Amended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007
Amended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007
Amended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2170/0 (Power=3)
Who Am I?
A public message's claim as to who published it is
self-ratifying, unless the claim is self-contradictory, or a
challenge of identity pertaining to the claimed publisher has
been issued within one month before its publication.
History:
Created by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 754/7 (Power=3)
Definition Definitions
Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy
function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:
(1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of
a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is
inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as
the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.
(2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that
meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly
defined by the rules.
(3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,
and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by
default has the meaning it has in those contexts.
(4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule
by default has its ordinary-language meaning.
This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate
terminology or grammar.
[CFJ 1439 (called 20 February 2003): A difference in language
qualifies as a difference in dialect; it is possible to take game
actions by messages in languages other than English.]
[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): If a message is in a language other
than English, and its intended audience does not understand the
language, this constitutes gross unclarity that makes the message
ineffective.]
[CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or
nickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.]
[CFJ 1861 (called 8 January 2008): A player's legal name (legal in eir
country of residence) is not necessarily an acceptable way to refer to
em.]
[CFJ 1782 (called 4 November 2007): Referring to a player by the name
of an office that e holds suffices to identify em uniquely as a
person, if there is no doubt regarding who holds that office.]
[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): Extremely complex synonyms, requiring
extensive effort to interpret correctly, can constitute a sufficient
degree of unclarity as to render the message ineffective.]
[CFJ 1840 (called 20 December 2007): A proper noun that has not been
explicitly defined does not adequately refer to any entity, and is not
implicitly defined by the context in which it is used.]
[CFJ 1580 (called 12 January 2006): Base64 encoding of (part of) a
message, other than in the context of MIME with appropriate headers,
can render a message ineffective for unclarity, because the decoding
step requires unreasonable effort within the meaning of CFJ 1460.]
[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): HTML encoding (including
numerical character entity encoding) does not render a message
ineffective for unclarity if a suitable MIME type is indicated by a
header.]
[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): An email message does not need
the RFC-required "MIME-Version:" header in order for it to be
interpreted in the MIME way.]
[CFJ 1536 (called 13 March 2005): The phrase "AOL!" is not a
sufficiently clear synonym for "Me too!".]
[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): A contract can redefine a
rule-defined term in its own way, and the contract's definition will
then apply in situations governed by the contract.]
[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): A word or phrase can acquire a
meaning by custom, provided that it is a reasonable meaning and does
not unreasonably change the meaning of phrases that already have a
meaning.]
History:
Created by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993
Amended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993
Amended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993
Amended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995
Infected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial
Amended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999
Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003
Amended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003
Amended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2152/3 (Power=3)
Mother, May I?
The following terms are defined. These definitions are used
when a rule includes a term in all caps, and SHOULD be used when
a rule includes a term otherwise. Earlier definitions take
precedence over later ones. If a rule specifies one or more
players in connection with a term, then the term applies only to
the specified player(s).
1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to
perform the described action are unsuccessful.
2. MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing
the described action violates the rule in question.
3. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the
described action, the full implications of performing it
should be understood and carefully weighed.
4. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
5. MAY: Performing the described action does not violate the
rule in question.
6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the
described action violates the rule in question.
7. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform
the described action, the full implications of failing to
perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.
History:
Created by Proposal 5053 (Murphy), 5 July 2007
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5054 (Murphy), 5 July 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5189 (Levi), 3 September 2007
Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5247 (AFO), 14 October 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5353 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5354 (Murphy), 16 December 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1023/23 (Power=2)
Common Definitions
The following terms are defined:
(a) The phrases "in a timely fashion" and "as soon as possible"
mean "within seven days".
(b) The term "paragraph" means a subset of text determined as
follows:
(1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply
"bulleted") section is a unit of text.
(2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.
(3) Each unit of a document has a level as follows. All
unbulleted units have level 1. Each bulleted unit has
level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units it is
nested inside.
(4) A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between
those units which has level no greater than that of the
unit appearing first.
(5) The units of a document form an ordered tree, with the
hierarchy determined as follows. The root is an empty
unit with level zero, which nominally appears at the
beginning of the document. One unit is a descendant of
another unit if it appears after the latter, has
strictly greater level, and is not separated from the
latter by a barrier. The tree's ordering follows the
order of the units in the document.
(6) A "paragraph" identified by partial quotation is
determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the
entirety of that quotation.
(7) A "paragraph" identified by an ordinal n is determined
by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.
(8) A "paragraph" identified by enumerated section labels is
determined by the sub-tree arrived at by traversal from
the root, using the specified series of labels.
(c) Agoran epochs:
(1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.
(2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.
(3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of
each Gregorian month.
(4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,
April, July, and October begin.
(5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January
begins.
History:
Created by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994
Amended by Proposal 907, ca. Apr. or May 1994
Amended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. or May 1994
Amended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994
Amended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995
Amended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995
Amended(6) by Proposal 2489, Feb. 16 1996
Amended(7) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996
Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, May 26 1996
Amended(8) by Proposal 2629, Jul. 4 1996
Amended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996
Amended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999
Amended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999
Amended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999
Amended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999
Amended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000
Amended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002
Amended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002
Amended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(18) by Proposal 4938 (Murphy), 29 April 2007
Amended(19) by Proposal 5005 (root), 18 June 2007
Amended(20) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007
Amended(21) by Proposal 5102 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(22) by Proposal 5081 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007
Amended(23) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2161/2 (Power=2)
ID Numbers
If a rule defines a type of entity as having ID numbers, then:
(a) Whenever an instance of that type does not have an ID
number, the player held responsible by that rule SHALL
assign an ID number to it by announcement as soon as
possible.
(b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a natural
number (expressed as a decimal literal with at most 14
digits) distinct from any ID number, and greater than any
orderly ID number, previously assigned to an entity of that
type. The player SHALL select the smallest number possible,
unless e reasonably believes that selecting any smaller
number might be invalid or confusing.
(c) Each ID number is either orderly (default) or chaotic. Upon
a judicial finding that the assignment of an ID number was
ILLEGAL, the ID number becomes chaotic.
(d) Once assigned, an ID number cannot be changed.
(e) If an office is responsible for assigning ID numbers, then
that officer's report includes the greatest orderly ID
number, and a list of all chaotic ID numbers, previously
assigned to the type of entity.
History:
Created by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2146/1 (Power=2)
Indices
Indices are elements of the extended real numbers, which is a
total order consisting of the real numbers plus a minimum
element, called negative infinity, and a maximum element, called
positive infinity or unanimity.
The ratio of a positive index to zero is positive infinity. The
ratio of a negative index to zero is negative infinity. The
ratio of zero to any index is zero.
History:
Created by Proposal 4979 (Zefram, Maud), 31 May 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2162/1 (Power=2)
Switches
A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a
switch, and specify the following:
a) The type(s) of entity possessing an instance of that switch.
No other entity possesses an instance of that switch.
b) One or more possible values for instances of that switch,
exactly one of which is designated as the default. No other
values are possible for instances of that switch.
c) Exactly one officer who tracks instances of that switch.
That officer's report includes the value of each instance of
that switch whose value is not its default value.
At any given time, each instance of a switch has exactly one
possible value for that type of switch. If an instance of a
switch comes to have a value, it ceases to have any other value.
If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a
possible value, it comes to have its default value.
"To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a
given value. "To become X" (where X is a possible value of
exactly one of the subject's switches) is to flip that switch to
X.
History:
Created by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2150/2 (Power=2)
Personhood
A person is an entity that has the general capacity to be the
subject of rights and obligations under the rules. An entity is
a person if and only if it is defined to be so by rules with
power 2 or greater.
Any biological organism that is capable of communicating by
email in English is a person.
"First-class person" means a person of a biological nature.
"First-class player" means a player who is a first-class person.
The basis of a a first-class person is the singleton set
consisting of that person.
[CFJ 1700 (called 10 July 2007): The requirement of capability to
communicate by email can be satisfied even if the players of Agora do
not know the organism's email address.]
[CFJ 1685 (called 31 May 2007): Being in a mindless job (e.g.,
keyboard, stenographer, spokesman) may create a rebuttable presumption
against personhood and against one having spoken on one's own behalf.]
History:
Created by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2166/2 (Power=2)
Assets
An asset is an entity defined as such by an instrument or
contract (hereafter its backing document).
Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise
lack an owner, it is owned by the Bank. If an asset's backing
document restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then
that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity
outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity
outside that class.
The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as
such by its backing document. That entity's report includes a
list of all instances of that class and their owners. This
portion of that entity's report is self-ratifying.
An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally CAN be
created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to
modification by its backing document. To "gain" an asset is to
have it created in one's possession; to "award" an asset to an
entity is to create it in that entity's possession.
An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
announcement, and an asset owned by the Bank generally CAN be
destroyed by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to
modification by its backing document. To "lose" an asset is to
have it destroyed from one's possession; to "revoke" an asset
from an entity is to destroy it from that entity's possession.
A asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another
entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing
document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing
document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.
A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing
document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are
fungible.
[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): The self-ratifying asset
report is the complete list of ownerships of assets of that class; a
partial list does not self-ratify.]
[CFJ 1850 (called 22 December 2007): The general ability of the
recordkeepor to create assets does not include an ability to determine
who possesses them when created, so they are necessarily owned by the
Bank upon creation.]
History:
Created by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2181/0 (Power=1)
The Accountor
The Accountor is an office; its holder is responsible for
keeping track of assets.
The Accountor is the default recordkeepor for all assets that do
not specify a different recordkeepor.
[Cross-references (1 January 2008): the Accountor's duties are:
* default recordkeepor for assets (rule 2181)]
History:
Created by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1728/17 (Power=2)
Dependent Actions
An announcement of intent to perform a dependent action,
unambiguously describing the action and method of dependent
action, initiates the Agoran decision of whether to approve the
action. For this decision:
(a) The vote collector is the announcer.
(b) The available options are SUPPORT and OBJECT.
(c) The voting period ends after fourteen days or immediately
before it is resolved, whichever comes first.
(d) The eligible voters are those entities that were active
first-class players at the start of the voting period,
except for any entities disqualified by the rule specifying
that the action can be performed dependently.
(e) The voting limit of each eligible voter is one.
(f) The vote collector of such a decision CANNOT resolve it if
it was initiated more than fourteen days ago, or (if it has
an objection and/or majority index) less than four days ago.
(g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector performs
the action upon resolving the decision.
(h) The announcer, by virtue of the announcement of intent,
implicitly submits a ballot of SUPPORT on the Agoran
decision, if e is an eligible voter and does not explicitly
repudiate this implication in the announcement.
The specification in the rules that an action can be performed
dependently does not prohibit performing that action
independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.
[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): The method of dependent action need
not be described exactly: an approximate but inexact description
suffices, as does the rule-defined term.]
History:
Created by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997
Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial
(unattributed)
Amended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial
Amended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998
Amended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999
Amended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999
Amended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000
Amended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000
Amended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001
Amended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001
Amended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002
Amended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003
Amended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007
Amended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007
Amended(14) by Proposal 4999 (Zefram), 12 June 2007
Amended(15) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007
Amended(16) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007
Amended(17) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2124/5 (Power=1)
Methods of Dependent Actions
The following methods of dependent actions are defined:
(a) With N Supporters. For this method, the support index is
N+1. "With Support" is synonymous with "With 1 Supporter".
(b) Without N Objections. For this method, the objection index
is N. "Without Objection" is synonymous with "Without 1
Objection".
(c) With N Agoran Consent. For this method, the majority index
is N. "With Agoran Consent" is synonymous with "With 1/2
Agoran Consent".
[CFJ 1802 (called 19 November 2007): The phrase "by Agoran Support" is
not an unambiguous description of a method of dependent action.]
History:
Created by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006
Amended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(3) by Proposal 4978 (Murphy), 31 May 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007
Amended(5) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1769/5 (Power=2)
Holidays
A Holiday is a period of time designated as such by the Rules.
During a Holiday, the Promotor SHALL NOT distribute any
proposals, and judges SHALL NOT be assigned to any judicial
case, and judges SHALL NOT assign judgement to any judicial
question.
If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given
time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the
72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that
action need not be done until 72 hours after that Holiday ends.
If some Rule bases the time of a future event upon the time of
another event, or requires that a Player perform some action
within some time of another event, and that other event occurs
during a Holiday, the time at which the Holiday ends shall be
used instead for the purpose of determining the time of the
future event or of the time by which the Player must perform the
specified action.
This Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the
timing of events, and over all Rules which require Players to
perform events before a specified time.
The period each year from midnight GMT on the morning of 24
December to the beginning of the first Agoran week to begin
after 2 January is a Holiday.
[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The registration of a player is an
event for the purposes of rule 1769.]
[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The expiration of a rule-defined
period is an event for the purposes of rule 1769.]
[CFJ 1859 (called 2 January 2008): Rule 1769 does not cause extension
of voting periods that start before a holiday and end during it.]
[CFJ 1480 (called 5 January 2004): An automatic event specified to
occur at regular calendar intervals, for example quarterly, happens at
its specified time even if that is during a holiday.]
History:
Created by Proposal 3679 (General Chaos), Jan. 30 1998
Amended(1) by Proposal 4036 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000
Amended(2) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001
Amended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(4) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007
Amended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1750/1 (Power=1)
Read the Ruleset Week
The first Agoran week each year which falls entirely in February
is Read the Ruleset Week. Agorans are encouraged to read the
ruleset during Read the Ruleset Week.
History:
Created by Proposal 3601 (Chuck), Dec. 9 1997
Amended(1) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================================================
Offices
A category concerning administrative positions held by persons
within the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1006/23 (Power=2)
Offices
A role is an office if and only if it is so defined by the
rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) or is
filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of an office is
an officer, and may be referred to by the name of the office.
An office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining
it; otherwise, it is elected.
[CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): This rule does not define the meaning
of the term "office", in the sense meant by rule 754, but rather
references the usual English definition of "office" and governs
offices as thus defined.]
[CFJ 1702 (called 12 July 2007): A requirement to submit something to
an officer is satisfied by publishing it, even if that office is
vacant at the time.]
History:
Created by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993
Amended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993
Amended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994
Amended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994
Amended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994
Amended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995
Amended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996
Amended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996
Amended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999
Amended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000
Amended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002
Amended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Amended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Amended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007
Amended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007
Amended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007
Amended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007
Amended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007
Amended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007
Amended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007
Amended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007
Amended(21) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007
Amended(22) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007
Amended(23) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2154/5 (Power=2)
Replacing Officers
Any player CAN make an active player (hereafter the nominee) the
holder of an elected office, thus removing any previous holder
from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided that the nominee
consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is
made.
If intent to achieve consent for a nominee is announced as
above, then any other active player may be nominated for the
position with eir own consent by announcement, during the
minimum waiting period between intent and action defined for
Agoran Consent.
If, at the end of this period, there is more than one consenting
nominee, then officeholding cannot be changed by means of this
Agoran consent (even if consent was achieved), and the IADoP
SHALL as soon as possible initiate an Agoran decision to
determine the new officeholder. Until this Agoran decision is
resolved, the office cannot change hands by the mechanism of
this rule.
In the Agoran decision to determine a new officeholder, the
valid options are the nominees, quorum is the lesser of three
and the number of active players (other rules on quorum
notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players,
and the vote collector is the IADoP. In the notice resolving
the decision, the IADoP will select one nominee from the set of
nominees which each received the largest number of votes; this
chosen nominee becomes the officeholder upon the posting of the
valid notice.
Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,
with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN
flip an office's stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual
office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.
If an office is Temporal at the end of a quarter, and no attempt
to change the holder of that office with Agoran consent was made
during that quarter, then the IADoP SHALL make at least one such
attempt in the following quarter, and SHALL make the change if
consent is achieved. These requirements are waived if another
player makes such a change during the following quarter.
History:
Created by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007
Amended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2138/3 (Power=1)
The International Associate Director of Personnel
The International Associate Director of Personnel is an
low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track
of officers and reports.
The IADoP's report includes the following:
a) The holder of each office.
b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.
c) The date of the most recent attempt to achieve Agoran Consent
for changing the holder of that office.
[CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The International Associate Director
of Personnel is the Director of Personnel.]
[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the IADoP's duties are:
* hold election for office where contested (rule 2154)
* attempt to change officeholders quarterly (rule 2154)
* report officeholding (rule 2138)
* award long service patent titles (rule 1922)]
History:
Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5367 (Levi; disi.), 20 December 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2143/1 (Power=1)
Official Reports
For each office:
a) If any information is defined by the rules as part of that
office's weekly report, then the holder of that office SHALL
maintain all such information, and SHALL publish it at least
once each week. Otherwise, that office has no weekly report.
b) If any information is defined by the rules as part of that
office's monthly report, then the holder of that office SHALL
maintain all such information, and SHALL publish it at least
once each month. Otherwise, that office has no monthly
report.
Any information defined by the rules as part of an office's
report, without specifying which one, is part of its weekly
report (unless the office is defined by the rules as
low-priority, in which case it is part of its monthly report).
History:
Created by Proposal 4970 (Zefram), 23 May 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1551/11 (Power=3)
Ratification
A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.
An official document is a public document purported to be part
(possibly all) of an official report; this part is the
document's scope. Any player CAN, without objection, ratify an
official document, specifying its scope. The date of this
ratification and the scope of the ratified document become part
of the official report in question, until the same scope is
ratified at a later date.
Any public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is
ratified one week after its publication, unless explicitly and
publicly challenged during that period via one of the following
methods, explaining the scope and nature of the perceived error:
a) An inquiry case, appropriate for questions of legal
interpretation.
b) A claim of error, appropriate for matters of fact. The
publisher of the original document SHALL respond to a claim
of error as soon as possible, either publishing a revision or
denying the claim. If e denies the claim, then the original
document is ratified one week after the denial, unless it is
challenged again (subject to the same requirements) during
that period.
When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so
that the ratified document was completely true and accurate at
the time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a
public document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel
any messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or
overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted action.
[CFJ 1690 (called 19 June 2007): A challenge to a self-ratifying
document [at the time of CFJ 1690, the resolution of an Agoran
decision] must explicitly identify the document, either individually
or as part of a set, and explicitly contest the accuracy of some
aspect of it.]
[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): A challenge to any part of
a self-ratifying document prevents ratification of all parts of it.]
[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): Ratification of an official
document affects only those aspects of gamestate that are defined to
be part of the official report, and not aspects that are incidentally
reported on; in particular, ratification of an official report on
certain parameters pertaining to each player does not ratify the list
of players.]
History:
Created by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996
Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 4 1997, substantial
(unattributed)
Amended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial
Amended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998
Amended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999
Amended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001
Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005
Amended(6) by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005
Amended(7) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(8) by Proposal 5101 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(9) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007
Amended(10) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007
Amended(11) by Proposal 5315 (Murphy), 28 November 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2160/2 (Power=1)
Deputisation
Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a
particular position (deputise for that position) if:
(a) the rules require the holder of that position, by virtue of
holding that position, to perform the action (or, if the
position is vacant, would so require if the position were
filled); and
(b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be
performed has expired; and
(c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier
that e intended to deputise for that position for the
purposes of the particular action; and
(d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,
other than by deputisation, if e held the position.
[CFJ 1776 (called 1 November 2007): A requirement to perform an
action, for the purposes of this rule, can be a logical implication
from rules and circumstances, not just directly imposed by the rules.]
History:
Created by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5200 (Zefram; disi.), 8 September 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5414 (Murphy), 26 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================================================
Agoran Decisions
A category concerning the means by which this nomic makes
collective decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 693/9 (Power=3)
Agoran Decisions
When the rules calls for an Agoran decision to be made, the
decision-making process takes place in the following three
stages, each described elsewhere:
(a) Initiation of the decision.
(b) Voting of the people.
(c) Resolution of the decision.
History:
Initial Mutable Rule 205, Jun. 30 1993
Amended by Proposal 693 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993
Amended(1) by Proposal 1564 (Steve), Apr. 28 1995
Infected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Sep. 14 1997, substantial
(unattributed)
Amended(3) by Rule 693, Sep. 28 1997, substantial
Amended(4) by Proposal 3809 (General Chaos), Dec. 7 1998
Amended(5) by Proposal 3921 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999
Amended(6) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4040 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000
Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(7) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 107/7 (Power=3)
Initiating Agoran Decisions
An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to
initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent
to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks
any of the following information, and the lack is correctly
identified within one week after the notice is published:
(a) The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of
proposal 4781").
(b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to
enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In
particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is
always sufficient for this purpose.
(c) A clear indication of the options available.
(d) The identity of the vote collector.
(e) Any additional information required by the rules for this
announcement.
The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting
period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts
for seven days. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
voting period for a decision cannot be shorter than seven days,
unless the decision is whether to approve a dependent action.
[CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The intent to initiate the decision and
the information required in the notice need not be explicit.]
[CFJ 1743 (called 18 September 2007): If the notice does not mention
voter eligibility but the type of Agoran decision is clear and the
rule defining the relevant type of Agoran decision fully determines
the class of eligible voters, then the notice thereby implicitly
describes the class of eligible voters.]
[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): Information that is explicitly
presented in the notice takes precedence over any information that
would be implicit, even where the explicit information is inaccurate
and the implicit information would have been accurate.]
[CFJ 1651 (called 6 May 2007): If a R107 notice initiating an Agoran
decision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and
there is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which
voters were eligible at that time, then the notice's description of
the class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable
public agreement on which persons are eligible.]
[CFJ 1652 (called 6 May 2007): The set of eligible voters on an Agoran
decision can change during its voting period.]
History:
Initial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995
Amended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999
Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(4) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007
Amended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007
Amended(6) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007
Amended(7) by Proposal 5413 (root), 26 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2137/1 (Power=1)
The Assessor
The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for
collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.
The Assessor is the default vote collector for all Agoran
decisions that do not specify a different vote collector.
[CFJs 1758-1759 (called 30 September 2007): if Assessorship changes
hands, vote collection duties move with it.]
[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Assessor's duties are:
* report date of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)
* report roll call of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)
* default vote collector for Agoran decisions (rule 2137)
* report EVLOP (rule 2156)]
History:
Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 683/14 (Power=3)
Voting on Agoran Decisions
An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a
ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice
indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be
valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions:
(a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the
decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the
time of submission.
(b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.
(c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the
voter.
(d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the
voting period.
Among the otherwise-valid votes on an Agoran decision, only the
first N submitted by each entity are valid, where N is the
entity's voting limit on that decision. The voting limit of an
entity that is not an eligible voter on an Agoran decision is
zero. The voting limit of an eligible voter on an Agoran
decision is one, except where rules say otherwise.
The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots
selecting that option.
Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of
ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would
loosen the constraints specified by this rule.
[CFJ 1609 (called 13 January 2007): To "clearly identif[y] the matter
to be decided" does not necessarily require specifying it in detail.]
[CFJs 1852-1853 (called 23 December 2007): Claiming to submit more
votes than ones voting limit on the decision does not constitute the
making of a false statement.]
History:
Initial Mutable Rule 207, Jun. 30 1993
Amended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), Nov. 10 1993
Amended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995
Amended(5) by Proposal 2590, May 1 1996
Amended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), Apr. 3 1998
Amended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999
Amended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000
Amended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000
Amended(10) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001
Amended(11) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005
Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(13) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007
Amended(14) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2127/0 (Power=1)
Conditional Votes
A ballot option (vote) on an Agoran decision may be submitted
conditionally, and the truth or falsity of the condition and
thus the selected option will be determined as it exists at the
end of the voting period.
The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified
if and only if the truth or falsity of the specified
condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity
or paradox, from information published within the voting period.
History:
Created by Proposal 4875 (Goethe), 1 December 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2168/0 (Power=1)
Extending the voting period
Whenever the voting period of an Agoran decision would end, and
the result would be FAILED QUORUM, the length of the voting
period for that decision will immediately be doubled, provided
this has not already happened for the decision in question.
Upon such an occurrence, the vote collector for the decision
SHOULD issue a humiliating public reminder to the slackers who
have not yet cast any votes on it despite being eligible.
History:
Created by Proposal 5191 (root), 6 September 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 208/5 (Power=3)
Resolving Agoran decisions
The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision may resolve
it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. E
SHALL do so as soon as possible after the end of the voting
period. To be valid, this announcement must satisfy the
following conditions:
(a) It is published after the voting period has ended.
(b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.
(c) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as
described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters'
valid ballots on the various options.
Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector.
This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide
another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.
[CFJ 1711 (called 1 August 2007): If a purported resolution notice
refers via a References: header to a previous notice with an
incomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give
revised totals, this does not qualify as including a vote tally.]
[CFJ 1810 (called 28 November 2007): If a purported resolution notice
refers via an approximate date header to a previous notice with an
incomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give
revised totals, this does qualify as including a vote tally.]
[CFJ 1822 (called 4 December 2007): If a purported resolution notice
includes invalid votes in its tally of votes, this makes the notice
invalid.]
History:
Initial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993
Amended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995
Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007
Amended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 955/11 (Power=3)
Determining the Will of Agora
The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows.
(a) If there is more than one available option, and the number
of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots is less than
quorum, then the outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the
remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved
quorum.
(b) If the decision is whether to adopt a proposal, then the
voting index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the
strength of AGAINST. If the voting index is greater than 1,
and greater than or equal to the decision's adoption index,
then the outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is
REJECTED.
(d) If the decision is whether to approve a dependent action:
(1) If the strength of OBJECT is greater than or equal to
the objection index (if any), then the outcome is
REJECTED.
(2) If the strength of SUPPORT is less than the support
index (if any), then the outcome is REJECTED.
(3) If the ratio of the strength of SUPPORT to the combined
strength of SUPPORT and OBJECT is less than or equal to
the majority index (if any), then the outcome is
REJECTED.
(4) Otherwise, the outcome is APPROVED.
[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision is
determined at the time the vote collector makes the calculations
described in rule 955.]
History:
Initial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993
Amended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993
Amended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993
Amended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993
Amended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993
Amended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994
Amended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995
Mutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996
Amended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998
Amended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998
Amended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002
Amended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002
Amended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002
Amended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(11) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 879/26 (Power=2)
Quorum
Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of
eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that decision),
rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than
N, in which case quorum is N, or the decision is whether to
approve a dependent action, in which case quorum is zero).
[CFJ 1562 (called 3 May 2005): A cancelled vote on a Proposal does not
count towards quorum.]
[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision
changes as the set of eligible voters changes.]
History:
Initial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993
Amended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994
Amended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995
Infected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996
Amended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial
Amended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997
Amended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998
Amended(8) by Proposal "A Separation of Powers" (Steve, Without
Objection), Apr. 20 1999
Amended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999
Amended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999
Amended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000
Amended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000
Amended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000
Amended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002
Amended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002
Amended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002
Amended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002
Amended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002
Amended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002
Amended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004
Amended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005
Amended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(23) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007
Amended(24) by Proposal 4997 (Zefram, Goddess Eris), 6 June 2007
Amended(25) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007
Amended(26) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2034/4 (Power=3)
Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges
Any proposal that would otherwise change the validity of any
existing vote on any specific unresolved Agoran decision is
wholly without effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
This does not prevent amendment of the rules governing the
validity of votes on Agoran decisions in general.
Once an Agoran decision has been resolved, votes on it CANNOT be
validly submitted or retracted, and its outcome CANNOT be
changed in any way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This
does not prevent correcting errors in reporting its resolution.
A public document purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is
self-ratifying.
History:
Created by Proposal 4366 (Steve), 23 August 2002
Amended(1) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005
Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(3) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================================================
Proposals
A category concerning the primary and plenipotent system by
which changes are made to the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 106/10 (Power=3)
Adopting Proposals
A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,
including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making
other explicit changes to the gamestate.
A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear
indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which
places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its
author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it
from the Pool by announcement.
A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is
distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its
author as being its co-author at the time of submission.
Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.
For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and
PRESENT, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the
proposal.
The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,
with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at
the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0. A
Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary. All
other Proposals are Democratic.
If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,
then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it
from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and
its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not
otherwise take effect.
Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.
This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a
proposal to take effect.
[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with
the heading "Proposal:" and a title can be sufficient to clearly
indicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it
can be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]
[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with
the question "What is the title of this proposal?" can be sufficient
to clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]
[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): "AGAINT" is a variant spelling of
"AGAINST", not a customary synonym for "FOR", despite its former
private usage with the latter meaning.]
[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two
separate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the
attempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the
possible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly
requires a different resolution.]
[CFJ 1781 (called 4 November 2007): Proposal distribution is not
governed by this rule, so for the promotor to distribute a proposal
that is not in the proposal pool is not a violation of this rule.]
[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): It is possible for a proposal to
have retroactive effect.]
History:
Initial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994
Amended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994
Renumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994
Infected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995
Amended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998
Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007
Amended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007
Amended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007
Amended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007
Amended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007
Amended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2153/1 (Power=1)
Interest Index
The interest index of a proposal is an integer from 0 to 3. It
CAN be set by the proposer at the time of submission, or
otherwise defaults to 1. A proposal's interest index SHOULD be
proportional to its complexity.
"Disinterested" is a synonym for "interest index 0". A proposal
SHOULD be disinterested if and only if its effects are limited
to correcting errors and/or ambiguities.
History:
Created by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1607/15 (Power=1)
The Promotor
The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for
receiving and distributing proposals.
The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at
any time. During each week, the Promotor SHALL distribute each
proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the beginning
of that week.
The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the
clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is
distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The
distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of
whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.
When distributing a proposal, the Promotor SHALL specify the
following:
a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).
b) Its adoption index.
c) Whether it is ordinary or democratic.
d) Whether it is interested or disinterested.
Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the
Promotor.
The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the
Proposal Pool.
[CFJ 1546 (called 14 April 2005), CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a
proposal is purportedly distributed with a text that differs from the
submitted text, this constitutes a legal distribution of the submitted
proposal if and only if the difference does not affect the meaning of
the proposal.]
[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose
text consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating
matter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted
proposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal distribution
of either of the submitted proposals.]
[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute
a proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in
the proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)
distribution of a new proposal.]
[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor creates a new
proposal by distribution, by accidentally mangling the text of a
proposal in the pool, and the new proposal is very similar in meaning
to the one on which it is based (with only inconsequential
differences), then the author of the new proposal is the author of the
proposal on which it is based.]
[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor accidentally
creates a new proposal by distribution, and the new proposal is
seriously different from any proposal in the pool, then the new
proposal has no author.]
[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Promotor's duties are:
* not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)
* distribute proposals (rule 1607)
* manage ID numbers of distributed proposals (rule 1607)
* report proposal pool (rule 1607)]
History:
Created by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996
Amended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996
Amended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996
Null-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996
Amended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999
Amended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999
Amended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999
Amended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000
Amended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000
Amended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000
Amended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002
Amended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003
Amended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007
Amended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1450/7 (Power=2)
Separation of Powers
Any change in officeholdings that would result in a single
entity holding the offices of promotor and assessor
simultaneously is INVALID. This rule takes precedence over all
other rules regarding offices.
History:
Created by Proposal 1547, Apr. 14 1995
Amended(1) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996
Amended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998
Amended(3) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004
Amended(4) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004
Amended(5) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(6) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007
Amended(7) by Proposal 5106 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1698/0 (Power=3)
The Proposal System Is Protected
It must always be possible to adopt Proposals within a 4 week
period. Any change to the game state which would result in
this condition becoming false is cancelled and does not take
place, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.
History:
Created by Proposal 3465 (Steve), Apr. 26 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1950/19 (Power=3)
Voting on Democratic Proposals
The eligible voters on a democratic proposal are those entities
that were active first-class players at the start of its voting
period. The voting limit of each eligible voter on a democratic
proposal is one.
History:
Created by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000
Amended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000
Amended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001
Amended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002
Amended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002
Amended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002
Amended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003
Amended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003
Amended(8) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004
Amended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004
Amended(10) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005
Amended(11) by Proposal 4685 (Quazie, Murphy), 18 April 2005
Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(13) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(14) by Proposal 4972 (Goddess Eris), 23 May 2007
Amended(15) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007
Amended(16) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007
Amended(17) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007
Amended(18) by Proposal 5047 (root), 1 July 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007
Amended(19) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2156/4 (Power=2)
Voting on Ordinary Proposals
Each player has an associated number known as eir base voting
limit on ordinary proposals (BVLOP). The BVLOP of a first-class
player is four, and the BVLOP of any other player is zero.
BVLOP cannot be modified.
Each player has an associated number known as eir volatile
voting limit on ordinary proposals (VVLOP). Whenever a player
is registered, eir VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP. Changes to VVLOP
are secured
Each player has an associated number known as eir effective
voting limit on ordinary proposals (EVLOP). Whenever a player
is registered, eir EVLOP is set to eir BVLOP. At the end of
each week, each player's EVLOP is set to eir VVLOP, rounded to
an integer, breaking ties towards odd integers, and eir VVLOP is
set to the same rounded value. EVLOP cannot be modified by any
other means. The assessor's report includes each player's
EVLOP.
The eligible voters on an ordinary proposal are those entities
that were active players at the start of its voting period. The
voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary proposal is eir
EVLOP at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded
up) if the voter is in the chokey at the start of the voting
period.
History:
Created by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5082 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5141 (Zefram), 19 August 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 5358 (Murphy), 20 December 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2134/3 (Power=2)
Win by Clout
Upon a win announcement that a specified player's voting limit
on an ordinary proposal distributed at that time would exceed
the combined voting limits of all other players on that
proposal, the specified player satisfies the Winning Condition
of Clout.
Cleanup procedure: Each player's VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP, and
no player satisfies this Winning Condition again (the remainder
of this rule notwithstanding) until after the next time that
each player's EVLOP is set based on eir VVLOP.
History:
Created by Proposal 4930 (Goethe), 29 April 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5343 (Murphy), 8 December 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),
16 January 2008
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris,
OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008
Amended(3) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),
16 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2126/49 (Power=2)
Ribbons
Ribbons are a class of fixed assets. Changes to Ribbon holdings
are secured. Ownership of Ribbons is restricted to players.
Each Ribbon has exactly one color. Colors with different names
are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of
Ribbon is a currency.
The Tailor is a low-priority office, and the recordkeepor of
Ribbons.
Ribbons are gained as follows, unless the player already
possesses the color of Ribbon to be gained:
(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted and changes at least
one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer gains a Red Ribbon.
(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no
valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains an Orange Ribbon.
(+G) At the end of each month, each player who held at least one
office continuously during that month gains a Green Ribbon,
unless e violated a requirement to submit a report within a
time limit.
(+C) When a player deputises for an office, e gains a Cyan
Ribbon.
(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question
other than a question on sentencing, e gains a Blue Ribbon,
unless e violated a requirement to submit that judgement
within a time limit.
(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on
sentencing, e gains a Black Ribbon, unless e violated a
requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit.
(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player for the first
time, e gains a White Ribbon. When a first-class person
has been a player continuously for at least three months,
was never a player before that period, and names another
first-class player as eir mentor (and has not named a
mentor in this fashion before), that player gains a White
Ribbon.
(+M) When, during Agora's birthday, a player publicly
acknowledges the occasion, e gains a Magenta Ribbon.
(+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains
an Ultraviolet Ribbon.
(+V) When a player is awarded a Patent Title, e gains a Violet
Ribbon, unless e gains a different Ribbon for the award.
(+I) When a player is awarded a degree, e gains an Indigo
Ribbon.
(+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded
points to at least three different contestants during that
month, the contestmaster gains a Yellow Ribbon.
If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for
Ribbons, then a player CAN destroy one Ribbon of each such color
in eir possession to satisfy the Winning Condition of
Renaissance.
[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Tailor's duties are:
* recordkeepor of ribbons (rule 2126)]
[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient
abbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of
ribbon: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,
Indigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,
aQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,
Yellow, Zinnwaldite.]
History:
Created by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006
Amended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007
Amended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007
Amended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007
Amended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007
Amended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007
Amended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007
Amended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007
Power changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007
Amended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007
Amended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007
Amended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007
Amended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007
Amended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007
Amended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007
Amended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007
Amended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007
Amended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007
Amended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007
Amended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007
Amended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007
Amended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007
Amended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007
Amended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007
Amended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007
Amended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007
Amended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007
Amended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007
Amended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007
Amended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007
Amended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007
Amended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007
Amended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007
Amended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007
Amended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007
Amended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007
Amended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007
Amended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007
Amended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007
Amended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007
Amended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007
Amended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007
Amended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008
Amended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008
Amended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008
Retitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008
Amended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2194/1 (Power=2)
Notes
Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is
restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.
Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale
(ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).
Each pitch of Note is a currency.
The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.
Notes are gained as follows:
(1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the
number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during
that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate
proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=
AI/2:
(F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.
(F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.
(G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.
(Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.
(A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.
(2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who published at
least one weekly report during that week gains an E
Note.
(Eb) At the end of each month, each player who published at
least one monthly report during that month gains an Eb
Note.
(3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at
least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D
Note.
(4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at
least one Point during that week gains a C Note.
(C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded
at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.
Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:
(1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to
increase another player's VVLOP by 1.
(2) A player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major
scale to increase eir own VVLOP by 1.
(3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to
decrease another player's VVLOP by 1.
(4) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make
another player gain one Note of that pitch.
(5) During Agora's Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming
the melody "Happy Birthday" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or
a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of
Musicianship, unless another player has already done so
during that Birthday.
[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): a decrease of VVLOP cannot
be by a negative number.]
[Cross-references (22 January 2008): the Conductor's duties are:
* recordkeepor of notes (rule 2194)]
History:
Created by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008
Amended(1) by Proposal 5417 (Murphy; disi.), 30 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2142/3 (Power=2)
Support Democracy
A player CAN, with 2 support, flip a proposal's chamber from
ordinary to democratic.
History:
Created by Proposal 4955 (Zefram), 7 May 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5043 (root), 1 July 2007
Power changed from 1.1 to 2 by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5210 (Murphy), 8 September 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2019/12 (Power=2)
Prerogatives
In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the
Speaker SHALL randomly assign each Minister Without Portfolio a
different Prerogative for the upcoming month. If there are more
members in one set than the other, then e SHALL randomly choose
which members of the larger set take part in the assignment.
The following Prerogatives are defined:
a) Default Officeholder. The Default Officeholder CAN become
holder of a vacant elected office by announcement, unless e
is prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.
b) Default Justice. Whenever the Clerk of the Courts assigns a
judicial panel, e SHALL assign one with the Default Justice
as a member, unless no such panel is eligible to be so
assigned.
c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary
proposal in its voting period by announcement; this increases
its Adoption Index by 1.
d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN
rubberstamp an ordinary proposal in its voting period by
announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the
contrary notwithstanding.
[CFJ 1870 (called 15 January 2008): A prerogative assigned for a
particular month is lost at the end of that month.]
History:
Created by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002
Amended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004
Amended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005
Amended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005
Amended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005
Amended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Amended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Amended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007
Amended(9) by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007
Amended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007
Amended(11) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008
Amended(12) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2188/0 (Power=2)
Win by Proposal
Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more
persons, all those persons satisfy the Winning Condition of
Legislation.
History:
Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),
16 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================================================
Adjudication
A category concerning the judicial system by which matters of
controversy are resolved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 991/10 (Power=2)
Judicial Cases Generally
A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a
procedure to settle a matter of controversy.
Each judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular
features as defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case
exist only as defined by the rules. A judicial case's subclass
CAN be specified by its initiator, or otherwise defaults to
inquiry.
The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for
managing judicial activity. The CotC's report includes the
status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have
at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.
Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically
been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers,
to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.
[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously
referenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if
the number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those
involved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]
[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so
it is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]
[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Clerk of the Courts' duties
are:
* issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)
* not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)
* prefer judicial panels containing the Default Justice (rule 2019)
* report open judicial cases (rule 991)
* manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)
* refuse excess CFJ (rule 2175)
* assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)
* track player posture (rule 1871)
* track player hawkishness (rule 1871)
* change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)
* push over recused judge (rule 1871)
* recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)
* inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)
* report active sentences (rule 1504)]
History:
Initial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993
Amended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993
Amended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994
Amended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994
Infected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996
Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996
Amended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001
Amended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002
Amended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2175/2 (Power=1)
Judicial Retraction and Excess
If a judicial case has not had any judge assigned to it, then:
a) Its initiator CAN retract it by announcement, thus causing it
to cease to be a judicial case.
b) If its initiator previously initiated five or more cases
during the same Agoran week as that case, then it is an
excess case, and the Clerk of the Courts CAN refuse it by
announcement, thus causing it to cease to be a judicial case.
History:
Created by Proposal 5284 (root, pikhq), 7 November 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5384 (Murphy), 1 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1868/12 (Power=2)
Judge Assignment Generally
At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it
(default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge.
This is a persistent status that changes only according to the
rules.
At any time, a judicial case either does not require a judge
(default) or requires a judge. This is not a persistent status,
but is evaluated instantaneously.
When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned,
the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by
announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as possible.
The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial
case are the active first-class players, subject to modification
by other rules. Being unqualified to be assigned as a judge
does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to be
judge of a case to which e is already assigned.
When a player is poorly qualified to be assigned as judge of a
judicial case, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL not assign em to be
the judge of that case; if e has done so, and that player is
still the judge of that case, then e CAN recuse that judge from
that case by announcement.
Making an entity unqualified or poorly qualified to judge is
secured, with a power threshold of 1.5.
To recuse a judge from a case is to deassign em as its judge.
Assigning a judge to a case implicitly recuses its existing
judge, if any. A recusal is "with cause" if and only if stated
as such by the rules.
[CFJ 1186: The Clerk of the Courts is required by Rule 1868 to select
a Judge who is qualified ["eligible" at the time of CFJ 1186] at the
time that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was
qualified at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the
identity of that Player is announced.]
History:
Created by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998
Amended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000
Amended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001
Amended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002
Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(5) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007
Amended(6) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(7) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(8) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007
Amended(9) by Proposal 5217 (Murphy; disi.), 13 September 2007
Amended(10) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007
Amended(11) by Proposal 5277 (Murphy, Zefram), 7 November 2007
Amended(12) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1871/20 (Power=1.5)
The Standing Court
Posture is a player switch with values Standing, Sitting,
Leaning, and Supine (default), tracked by the Clerk of the
Courts. A player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value
by announcement.
A supine player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any
judicial case. A sitting or leaning player is poorly qualified
to be assigned as judge of any judicial case.
Hawkishness is a player switch with values Hanging, Hugging, and
Hemming-and-Hawing (default), tracked by the Clerk of the
Courts. A player CAN flip eir hawkishness by announcement.
A hanging player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any
inquiry case. A hugging player is unqualified to be assigned as
judge of any criminal case, and poorly qualified to be assigned
as judge of any equity case.
When the CotC assigns a standing player as judge of a judicial
case, the player becomes sitting, except in the situation
discussed in the next sentence. If the CotC assigns a standing
player as judge of more than one judicial case consecutively in
the same announcement, and states in the announcement that these
are linked assignments, the player becomes sitting upon the last
of these assignments, but not any of the earlier ones. The CotC
SHOULD NOT perform linked assignments unless the cases being
linked are closely related in their subject matter.
The CotC CAN change all sitting players to standing by
announcement. The CotC SHALL NOT do this unless there is a
judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all
entities qualified to be so assigned are poorly qualified, and e
immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a
judge to that case.
When the CotC recuses a judge with cause, e SHALL flip that
player's posture to supine by announcement within one week.
[CFJ 1765 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change
a player's posture due to recusal, this rule makes em capable of doing
so.]
[CFJ 1766 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change
a player's posture due to recusal, eir capability to do so exists as
long as the obligation does, and this obligation does not terminate
due to the one-week time limit running out.]
History:
Created by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999
Amended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002
Amended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002
Amended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003
Amended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004
Amended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004
Amended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005
Amended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005
Amended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007
Amended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007
Retitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007
Amended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007
Amended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007
Power changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(14) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(15) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007
Amended(16) by Proposal 5249 (AFO), 14 October 2007
Amended(17) by Proposal 5250 (AFO), 14 October 2007
Amended(18) by Proposal 5251 (Goddess Eris), 14 October 2007
Amended(19) by Proposal 5259 (Zefram), 27 October 2007
Amended(20) by Proposal 5261 (root; disi.), 31 October 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2157/2 (Power=1.7)
Judicial Panels
A judicial panel is a structure whereby a group of two or more
persons (its members) act together for the purpose of judging
judicial cases. A judicial panel's membership cannot change,
and if two panels have the same membership then they are the
same panel. Judicial panels exist implicitly, without any
specific act of formation.
A judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its
members sending a message identified as being from the panel,
with the unanimous agreement of the panel's members, or with the
majority agreement of the members and the consent of the CotC.
The CotC SHOULD consent to a majority action if the panel has
made a reasonable effort to achieve consensus. By this
mechanism a judicial panel can act, in situations where the
rules state that an action is performed by sending a message. A
judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel
SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel satisfies all of
its obligations.
[CFJ 1746 (called 21 September 2007): A judicial panel is not a
person.]
[CFJ 1767 (called 21 October 2007): The agreement of the panel's
members referred to in this rule is a state of affairs that does not
require public messages in order to be brought into being.]
History:
Created by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2158/2 (Power=2)
Judicial Questions
A judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial
case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the rules.
At any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable
(default) or applicable. This is not a persistent status, but
is evaluated instantaneously.
At any time, each judicial question is either open (default),
suspended, or has exactly one judgement. This is a persistent
status that changes only according to the rules. The possible
types of judgement for a judicial question depend on the type of
question.
When a judicial question is applicable and open, its case
requires a judge.
When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case
has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid
judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL assign an appropriate
judgement to it as soon as possible. A judgement is valid
and/or appropriate only as defined by the rules. If more than
one judgement is valid and appropriate, then the choice between
them is left to the judge's discretion.
When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case
has the same judge assigned to it, continuously for one week,
the Clerk of the Courts CAN recuse that judge with cause by
announcement. When these conditions have all held continuously
for two weeks, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL so recuse that
judge as soon as possible.
[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A judge should give the judgement
that e believes is appropriate, and if e does so in good faith then e
can be EXCUSED if the judgement is later found to have been
inappropriate.]
[CFJ 1871 (called 15 January 2008): The appropriateness of a judgement
is determined solely by the facts of the case, and is independent of
the reasoning used by a judge to decide on the judgement.]
History:
Created by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2164/1 (Power=1)
Judicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer
The judge of a judicial case CAN recuse emself from it at any
time by announcement. If e has been assigned to the case for at
least four days, such a recusal is with cause.
Judicial cases can generally be transferred between judges by
this procedure: an entity (the transferee) CAN assign emself as
the judge of a judicial case by announcement if:
(a) the case has a judge assigned (the transferor); and
(b) the transferor and the transferee are different entities;
and
(c) the transferor has previously publicly consented to the
transfer and not publicly withdrawn that consent; and
(d) the transferee is qualified to be assigned as judge of the
case; and
(e) the transferee immediately (in the same announcement)
assigns a judgement to a judicial question in the case.
History:
Created by Proposal 5131 (Zefram), 13 August 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 591/23 (Power=1.7)
Inquiry Cases
There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.
An inquiry case's purpose is to determine the veracity of a
particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any
first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement
to be inquired into.
The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one
person from assignment as judge of the case.
An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is
always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:
* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and
logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated
* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically
true at the time the inquiry case was initiated
* UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically
undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately
described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry
case was initiated
* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at
the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the
game
* UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or
too vague, or if the information available to the judge is
insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and
UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as
to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute
insufficiency of information for this purpose
The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the
reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play
(including future judgements), but do not directly affect the
veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to
annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case
judgements.
[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot take the place
of a statement in initiating an inquiry case.]
[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement
can be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public
knowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine
it.]
[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement
logically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called
CFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this
as a situation of insufficient information being available.]
[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge
to hunt down or request the information that would be required to
render a substantive judgement.]
[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around
the interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not
provide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled
to treat this as a situation of insufficient information being
available.]
[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a
particular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player
holds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that
office.]
History:
Initial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993
Amended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993
Amended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993
Amended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996
Amended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996
Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996
Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial
(unattributed)
Amended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial
Amended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial
Infected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial
(unattributed)
Amended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial
Amended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,
substantial
Amended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997
Amended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999
Amended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999
Amended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000
Amended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000
Amended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001
Amended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002
Amended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Power changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007
Amended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007
Amended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1504/21 (Power=1.7)
Criminal Cases
There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.
A criminal case's purpose is to determine the culpability of a
particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach
of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be
initiated by any first-class person who is a member of the basis
of any player, by announcement which clearly specifies all of
the following:
a) The identity of the defendant.
b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.
c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)
by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.
The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.
In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform
the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument
for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the
defendant has been so informed. At any time during the
pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by
announcement.
The initiator and each member of the defendant's basis are
unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the
pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from
assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e
disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.
A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is
applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The
valid judgements for this question are:
* OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred
at least 200 days before the case was initiated
* ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been
reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the
same rule, and substantially the same alleged act
* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed
by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred
* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the
alleged act
* SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the
judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt
whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act
* UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that
the alleged act did not violate the specified rule
* EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably
avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as
that alleged
* GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified
rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is
appropriate
A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is
applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has
a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable
question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is
hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on
sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in
effect.
Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.
When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is
thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for
the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the
sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and
sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing
have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The
CotC's report includes the status of all active sentences.
The valid sentences are:
* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if
any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.
Has no effect.
* APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),
appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in
effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal
apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed
words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire
for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish
one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of
this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more
than once.
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, even if sentences of
this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more
than once.
* CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied
by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,
appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably
correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the
tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of
intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is
active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the
chokey except as required by this rule.
* EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by
the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,
appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably
correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the
tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches
amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type
is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as
required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,
e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.
An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal
case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a
judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant
by announcement.
[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is
expressed in the form "violating rule NNNN by XXX", the alleged act
for the purposes of the rules is only "XXX".]
[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section
labelled "arguments" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal
case does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly
breached.]
[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not
appropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]
[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is
appropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that
eir action is legal when it is not.]
[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to
"APOLOGY" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words
constitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of
prescribed words.]
[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed
words, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]
History:
Created by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995
Amended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996
Amended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996
Infected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial
(unattributed)
Amended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial
Amended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial
Amended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998
Amended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002
Amended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Power changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007
Amended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007
Amended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007
Amended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007
Amended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007
Amended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007
Amended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007
Amended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007
Amended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007
Amended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008
Amended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2190/0 (Power=2)
Crime Doesn't Pay
Being in exile is a Losing Condition.
Being in the chokey is a Losing Condition.
History:
Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),
16 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2169/3 (Power=1.7)
Equity Cases
There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case.
An equity case's purpose is to correct a potential injustice in
the operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be
initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which
clearly identifies the contract, the set of parties to the
contract, and a state of affairs whereby events have not
proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such as, but not
limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir contractual
obligations).
The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase.
During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the
pre-trial phase the judge SHALL as soon as possible inform all
the contracting parties of the case and invite them to submit
arguments regarding the equitability of the situation. The
pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so
informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that
they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.
The members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all
unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.
An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is
applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The
valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements
that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.
A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably
equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to
the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the
parties in the course of the case.
When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a
judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past
week (or all parties to the contract have approved that
judgement), the judgement is in effect as a binding agreement
between the parties. In this role it is subject to modification
or termination by the usual processes governing binding
agreements.
An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity
case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a
judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any party to
the contract in question by announcement.
[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated
with the rules as the subject contract.]
History:
Created by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 911/18 (Power=1.7)
Appeal Cases
There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.
An appeal case's purpose is to determine the appropriateness of
a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and
make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment
of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is
referred to as the prior assignment; the word "prior" in this
rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior
assignment.
An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal
case within the past two weeks, other than an assignment caused
by a judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any player
with 2 support.
The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case
are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each
of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior
case and none of the members is the prior judge.
An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is
applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The
valid judgements for the question on disposition are:
* AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for
the prior question
* REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the
appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes
that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement
if given a new opportunity
* REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the
appropriateness of the prior judgement
* OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior
question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate
in the prior question and the replacement judgement is
appropriate for the prior question
Initiation of an appeal case renders the prior question
suspended. It remains suspended as long as the question on
disposition in the appeal case has no judgement. When the
question on disposition has a judgement, things happen according
to that judgement:
* if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior
question again
* if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again
* if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused,
and the prior question is rendered open again
* if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement
judgement is assigned to the prior question
A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM,
and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior
judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.
Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)
in the prior judge's reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an
error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by
the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else
defaults to 50.
In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any
panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with
Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record
of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision.
[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a
judgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]
[CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form "I
call for the appeal of <judgement>" has the effect of initiating the
Agoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.]
History:
Created by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993
Amended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993
Amended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994
Amended by Rule 750, May 4 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996
Amended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996
Amended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996
Amended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic
(unattributed)
Amended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial
Amended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001
Amended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002
Amended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002
Amended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004
Amended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005
Amended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Power changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007
Amended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2171/0 (Power=1)
Rules Viewed as Binding Agreement
In general, the Rules shall be adjudicated as if the Rules were
a binding agreement between all Players, entered into by every
player as a part of becoming a Player. An actual or alleged
Rule violation shall be treated as the violation of a binding
agreement to be bound by the Rule or Rules in question.
The proposal, fora, and registration processes shall, prima
facie, be considered to be protective of a Player's rights and
privileges with respect to making and changing the agreement to
be bound by the rules.
[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): Despite this rule, the rules are
not a contract as defined by rule 1742, and cannot be adjudicated as a
binding agreement.]
History:
Created by Proposal 5230 (comex), 3 October 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================================================
Patent Titles and Degrees
A category concerning titles of honor and dishonor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 649/26 (Power=1)
Patent Titles
A Patent Title is a legal item given in recognition of a
person's distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its
holder is responsible for tracking patent titles.
A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the
announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to
make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as
soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the
award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial
question contesting the validity of the conditions.
When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said
to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from
an entity, that entity ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The
status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as
explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald's report includes a
list of each Patent Title that at least one entity Bears, with a
list of which entities Bear it.
As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,
the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.
When a patent title is used as a noun to refer to bearers of the
patent title, it is assumed to refer only to persons who Bear
that patent title unless context clearly indicates otherwise.
[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by
the rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the
same spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same
patent title.]
[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is
borne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent
title is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]
[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for an entity [a
person at the time of CFJ 1731] to bear more than one instance of a
patent title simultaneously.]
[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent
title X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special
meaning, it is correct to say that that person "is an X".]
[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Herald's duties are:
* report Patent Titles (rule 649)
* announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)
* award patent title of Champion (rule 1922)
* report the manner of wins (rule 1922)
* report win dates for Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 402)]
History:
Created by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996
Amended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996
Amended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic
(unattributed)
Amended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial
Amended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial
(unattributed)
Amended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999
Amended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999
Amended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999
Amended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999
Amended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000
Amended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000
Amended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001
Amended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001
Amended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003
Amended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005
Amended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005
Amended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007
Amended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007
Amended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007
Amended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007
Amended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007
Amended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007
Amended(26) by Proposal 5412 (woggle), 26 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1922/22 (Power=1)
Defined Regular Patent Titles
The following are Patent Titles:
(a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown
great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating
of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or
revoked.
(b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will
Be known as "Bard", and granted those with wit.
In order for the Title to be filled,
A level of Support must call for it.
Three players to a fourth may grant this name
If these three write as one, with two Support.
A current Bard may also grant the same,
Provided that a second Bard's a sport.
And so we don't the name of Bard debase,
A Player with three Supporters can conspire
To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:
Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.
But lest we ruin some poor minstrel's fun
No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
(c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine
Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be
awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a
particular Office continuously for the specified duration.
Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player.
(d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who
wins the game. The Herald's report includes how the player
won.
(e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded by the Herald to
any player who wins the game and does not already bear the
title. If the number of players bearing this title is
greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the
rules, then this title is administratively revoked from the
Speaker.
[CFJ 1865 (called 14 January 2008): The Patent Title of Champion
CANNOT be awarded by announcement of the Herald to a person who has
not won the game.]
History:
Created by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999
Amended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001
Amended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001
Amended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002
Amended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002
Amended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003
Amended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004
Amended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004
Amended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005
Amended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005
Amended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007
Amended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Amended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007
Amended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007
Amended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007
Amended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007
Amended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007
Amended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007
Amended(20) by Proposal 5300 (Murphy), 28 November 2007
Amended(21) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007
Amended(22) by Proposal 5389 (Goethe), 1 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1367/10 (Power=1.5)
Degrees
Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are
- Associate of Nomic (A.N.)
- Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)
- Master of Nomic (M.N.)
- Doctor of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.)
- Doctor of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.)
- Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.)
Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with
degrees listed later being ranked higher.
A degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once, and
CANNOT be revoked once awarded. The awarding of a degree is a
secured change
A degree SHOULD be awarded ONLY IF its new bearer has published
a suitable thesis with explicit intent to qualify for a degree
(though not necessarily for the specific degree being awarded).
A thesis is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic or
of nomic in general. A thesis's suitability depends on its
originality and quality, with regard to the rank of the degree
to be awarded.
History:
Created by Proposal 1367, Jan. 5 1995
Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 12 1996
Amended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial
Amended(3) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998
Amended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999
Amended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000
Amended(6) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001
Amended(7) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(8) by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Power changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(9) by Proposal 5243 (root; disi.), 7 October 2007
Amended(10) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================================================
Contract Law
A category concerning binding agreements that can be adjudicated
within this nomic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1742/12 (Power=1.5)
Contracts
Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among
themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and
be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a
contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the
set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract
may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract
automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls
below the minimum number of parties defined by the rules for
that contract. If not otherwise specified, the minimum number
of parties for any contract is two.
Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
between the contract and the rules.
[CFJ 1872 (called 15 January 2008): Being a player is not a
prerequisite for becoming party to a contract.]
[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e
agrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying
who this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate
who can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to
the contract by announcement.]
[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an
otherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to
be bound by the contract.]
[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): A contract is null and void if
the courts do not have sufficient evidence that a person's
contract-related rights (in rule 101) are not being infringed. This
includes evidence that the party to the contract has reviewed the
rules and has direct prior knowledge of the fora.]
[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an
agreement categorically cannot violate it.]
[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not
implicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]
[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): "Agreement between all parties"
can only exist if there are at least two parties.]
[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,
to modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract
between all the parties, including the contract being modified or
terminated.]
[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive
operations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of
the parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]
[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have
retroactive effect.]
[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract
cannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining
justiciability of the contract.]
[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able
to define terms used by the rules.]
[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create
new ways of winning the game.]
[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a
party in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by
that party that purports to cancel that authorisation.]
History:
Created by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997
Amended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998
Amended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000
Amended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003
Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Retitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007
Amended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007
Amended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007
Amended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007
Amended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Power changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007
Amended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007
Amended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2178/2 (Power=1.5)
Public Contracts
A public contract is a contract that has been identified as
such, as specified by this rule. Any other contract is private.
A member of a contract CAN identify it as a public contract by
publishing its text and membership, provided that at least one
of the following is true:
(a) The contract contains a clause identifying it as public.
(b) The publication is accompanied by a notice, indicating
unanimous consent of members, that the contract be public.
(c) The publication is accompanied by a notice, published
without objection of its members, that the contract be
public.
A partnership CAN identify its contract as a public contract by
publishing its text and membership.
If the text of a potential contract is published with a clear
indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then
it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a
contract.
Changes in the text or membership of a public contract do not
become effective until they are published.
History:
Created by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008
Power changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe),
16 January 2008
Amended(2) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2173/0 (Power=1)
The Notary
The Notary is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible
for keeping track of contracts.
The parties to a public contract SHALL keep the Notary informed
of its text and set of parties. The Notary's report includes
this information for each public contract.
The parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the Notary
informed of its text and set of parties. The Notary SHALL
disclose this information (to the extent that e has been
informed of it) to the judge of an equity case pertaining to
that contract. The Notary SHALL NOT disclose it otherwise,
except as explicitly allowed by the contract, or with the
explicit consent of all parties.
[CFJ 1786 (called 6 November 2007): The notary is not prohibited from
disclosing eir knowledge or guesses about the historical or current
text and parties of a private contract where e has no privileged
knowledge.]
History:
Created by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2191/0 (Power=1.5)
Pledges
A pledge is a contract identifying itself as such. The minimum
number of parties for a pledge is one.
A pledge CAN be modified or terminated by any party without
objection.
An equity case regarding a pledge CAN be initiated by a
non-party, provided that all other requirements for initiating
an equity case are met. The initiator of such a case is
considered to be a party to the pledge for the purpose of that
case.
[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): It is not possible to cease to be
a party to a pledge which has exactly one party by announcement, even
if the text of pledge explicitly permits this.]
History:
Created by Proposal 5395 (Murphy), 16 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2145/4 (Power=2)
Partnerships
A binding agreement governed by the rules which devolves its
legal obligations onto a subset of its parties, numbering at
least two, collectively, is a partnership. The members of a
partnership are those parties onto whom the partnership's legal
obligations are collectively devolved. A partnership's identity
and partnershiphood are not disrupted by changes to its
membership provided that it continues to meet the definition of
a partnership.
A partnership's basis is the set consisting of the union of the
the bases of each of its members. Where circularity occurs in
this definition, it is resolved by using the minimum basis sets
that provide consistency.
A partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains
at least two persons is a person.
[CFJ 1701 (called 11 July 2007): To qualify as a member of a
partnership it is not necessary to be responsible for all of the
partnership's obligations.]
[CFJ 1864 (called 12 January 2008): The devolution of a partnership's
legal obligations onto its members may be achieved by means of a
contract other than the partnership.]
[CFJ 1750 (called 24 September 2007): Partnerships can have non-player
members and nothing in the rules causes a member to cease being so due
to deregistration.]
[CFJ 1855 (called 29 December 2007): A person who is not a party to a
partnership contract cannot have obligations placed on em by that
contract, and so cannot be a member of the partnership.]
History:
Created by Proposal 4977 (BobTHJ), 31 May 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5041 (BobTHJ), 28 June 2007
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 5381 (Goethe), 1 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2174/0 (Power=1)
Aliens
An alien is a non-player who is a member of the basis of one or
more contracts (hereafter eir visas). A resident alien is an
alien with one or more registered visas.
History:
Created by Proposal 5274 (Murphy), 7 November 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2136/17 (Power=1)
Contests
A first-class player who is a member of an existing public
contract CAN make the contract into a Contest, with emself as
the sole contestmaster, without 3 objections, provided e is not
the contestmaster of another contest. Another first-class
player who is a member may replace the current contestmaster as
the sole contestmaster without 3 objections, but only as
explicitly described in the contest regulations and provided e
is not the contestmaster of another contest.
The minimum number of parties for a contest is one. Any player
may make a contest cease to be a contest without 3 objections.
Players SHOULD decide on whether a contract deserves to be a
contest based on its fairness or interest to players as a whole.
The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week
is equal to 5 times the number of its members that are first-
class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by the
contestmaster to other members by public announcement, and MUST
be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.
The total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week
is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are first-
class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by the
contestmaster from other members by public announcement, and
MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract.
History:
Created by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007
Amended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007
Amended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007
Amended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007
Amended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007
Amended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007
Amended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007
Amended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007
Amended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007
Amended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007
Amended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007
Amended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007
Amended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007
Amended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2179/1 (Power=1)
Points
Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is
restricted to players.
Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player
is eir score.
The Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor
of points.
[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Scorekeepor's duties are:
* recordkeepor of points (rule 2179)]
History:
Created by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),
16 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2187/0 (Power=2)
Win by High Score
Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score of
at least 100 (specifying all such players), all those players
satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score.
Cleanup procedure: Each player's score is set to 0.
History:
Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),
16 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2180/0 (Power=1)
Locations
A location is a public contract that describes itself as a
location. A person who becomes a party to a location is said to
move to that location. A person who is a party to a location is
said to be in that location. A person who ceases to be a party
to a location is said to leave that location.
A person cannot be in more than a single location at one time.
A person who moves to a location automatically leaves any
location e is already in. Whenever a person's location does not
permit em to leave it, e CANNOT move to any other location.
The minimum number of parties for a location is zero.
[CFJ 1877 (called 18 January 2008): It is not possible to cease to be
a party to a location which has exactly one party by announcement,
even if the text of the location explicitly permits this.]
History:
Created by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================================================
Frankenstein's Monster
A category concerning a monstrous subgame ragarding the cobbling
together of a rule from salvaged parts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2193/0 (Power=1)
The Monster
Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
History:
Created by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2192/0 (Power=1)
The Mad Scientist
The Mad Scientist is an office; its holder is responsible for
building the Monster.
At least once each week, the Mad Scientist SHALL:
a) Randomly select exactly one rule. If the selected rule is
either this rule or the rule "The Monster", then the
villagers have shown up with torches and pitchforks; skip
directly to proposal submission.
b) Select one or more contiguous sentences from the selected
rule.
c) Select exactly one noun from the selected text, and replace
each instance of that noun with "Monster" (including
grammatical variations, e.g. replacing "<noun>'s" with
"Monster's").
d) Submit a proposal, with adoption index equal to the Power of
the selected rule, and interest index 0, to append the
modified text to the rule "The Monster" (or, if the villagers
have shown up with torches and pitchforks, to repeal both
that rule and this one).
[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Mad Scientist's duties are:
* propose mutation of the monster (rule 2192)]
History:
Created by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================================================
Foreign Relations
A category concerning interaction with outside forces, including
other nomics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2135/2 (Power=1)
Advertising
Every month the ambassador shall update the page about Agora on
the NomicWiki at nomic.net, provided that that wiki is
operational. This page, when updated, is to include a list of
the current players. In updating the page the ambassador shall
ensure that information that is currently incorrect is either
corrected or removed, and that all links on the page point to
extant pages that are correctly described. The ambassador may
add new correct information to the page at eir discretion.
The ambassador is encouraged to also advertise Agora in other
suitable locations.
History:
Created by Proposal 4931 (Zefram), 29 April 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5035 (Zefram), 28 June 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 402/23 (Power=1)
Identity of the Speaker
The Speaker is the player who has borne the Patent Title of
Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with ties broken in
favor of the player who has been registered the longest.
The Herald's report includes the date on which each Minister
Without Portfolio most recently won the game.
[Cross-references (27 October 2007): the Speaker's duties are:
* assign prerogatives to Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 2019)
* figurehead (rule 103)
The other provisions governing the Speakership are:
* identity of the Speaker (rule 402)
* initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]
History:
Created by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996
Infected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial
(unattributed)
Amended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial
Amended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998
Amended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000
Amended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000
Amended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001
Amended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004
Amended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005
Amended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005
Amended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005
Amended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006
Amended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006
Amended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007
Amended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007
Amended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007
Amended(20) by Proposal 5144 (Zefram), 19 August 2007
Amended(21) by Proposal 5182 (Zefram), 29 August 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007
Amended(22) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007
Amended(23) by Proposal 5270 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 103/4 (Power=3)
Role of the Speaker
The Speaker is an imposed office.
The Speaker is the figurehead of Agora, embodying its spirit.
Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign nomics operate on the
Speaker's behalf.
History:
Initial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1481, Mar. 15 1995
Amended(1) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999
Retitled by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2184/0 (Power=1)
Foreign communications
When the Ambassador informs a foreign nomic of an event, e SHALL
use the forum (if any) specified by that nomic for announcing
that type of event.
[CFJ 1879 (called 19 January 2008): Canada is not a nomic, because its
primary purpose is not enjoyment.]
History:
Created by Proposal 5390 (Murphy), 16 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2148/2 (Power=2)
The Ambassador
The ambassador is a low-priority office, responsible for
relations with foreign nomics.
A foreign nomic may grant certain powers and privileges to
Agora's ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally
exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to
other rules and orders.
All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,
to be the ambassador.
[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Ambassador's duties are:
* advertise Agora (rule 2135)
* use appropriate forum when notifying foreign nomic (rule 2184)
* exercise diplomatic privileges in foreign nomics (rule 2148)
* track recognition (rule 2185)
* flip recognition (rule 2185)
* make foreign nomic a protectorate (rule 2147)
* check that protectorates still meet the criteria (rule 2147)
* report on protectorates (rule 2147)
* proclaim protective decree to target nomic (rule 2159)]
History:
Created by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2172/0 (Power=1)
Acting on Behalf of Agora
A player MAY perform an action on behalf of Agora with Agoran
Consent.
[CFJ 1801 (called 19 November 2007): This means that a player is
prohibited from acting on behalf of Agora if e does not have Agoran
Consent.]
[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): Actions of Agora generally do not
have significance under the rules of Agora.]
[CFJ 1714 (called 3 August 2007): Whether a player of Agora can take
game actions on behalf of Agora in a foreign nomic is determined
solely by the rules of the foreign nomic.]
[CFJ 1821 (called 4 December 2007): A nonsensical word does not
constitute a description of an action that could hypothetically be
performed on behalf of Agora.]
History:
Created by Proposal 5246 (Levi), 14 October 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2189/0 (Power=2)
Win by Extortion
Upon a player acting on behalf of Agora to award a win to one or
more persons, all those persons satisfy the Winning Condition of
Extortion.
History:
Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),
16 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2185/0 (Power=1)
Foreign Relations
Recognition is a foreign nomic switch, tracked by the
Ambassador, with values Unknown (default), Protected, Friendly,
Neutral, Sanctioned, Hostile, and Abandoned.
When a foreign nomic becomes a Protectorate, its Recognition
becomes Protected. When a foreign nomic ceases to be a
Protectorate, its Recognition becomes Unknown. A foreign
nomic's Recognition CANNOT change to or from Protected in any
other way.
The Ambassador CAN, without objection, flip a foreign nomic's
Recognition to any value (subject to the above restriction). E
SHALL inform that nomic of the change as soon as possible.
[CFJ 1860 (called 8 January 2008): A human is not a nomic.]
History:
Created by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2147/5 (Power=2)
Protectorates
Whereas Agora, being the superpower of nomics, has an inherent
responsibility to lead the nomic world; and whereas Agora
desires to encourage growth and promotion of the nomic
community, be it hereby known that Agora shall serve as
benevolent protector to any nomic which requests such status
(hereafter referred to as the protectorate).
In order to become a protectorate, a nomic must specify in its
ruleset that it submits to Agora as its benevolent protector.
It must also have rules or other gamestate arranged such that
any protective decree proclaimed by the ambassador will take
full effect upon proclamation. Any restriction whatsoever on
the content of a protective decree disqualifies the nomic from
being a protectorate.
If the criteria specified in the preceding paragraph are met,
the ambassador may make the nomic a protectorate with Agoran
Consent. If a protectorate ever does not meet these criteria,
it ceases to be a protectorate. The ambassador shall check
every month whether each protectorate continues to meet the
criteria, and shall announce whenever a protectorate has ceased
to be a protectorate.
The ambassador's report includes a list of all protectorates,
with contact details for each, and for each the forum in which
it is most appropriate to proclaim protective decrees that
target that protectorate.
[Note (25 July 2007): Suggested wording for a protectorate's ruleset:
"Any protective decree of Agora that targets this nomic takes effect
as specified by the rules of Agora.".]
[CFJ 1707 (called 20 July 2007): If a nomic's ruleset contains a
statement similar to "This nomic allows Agora unrestricted access to
make changes to its ruleset.", this can be interpreted as "This
nomic's rules change whenever the rules of Agora say they do.", thus
satisfying the requirement to make protective decrees effective [at
the time of CFJ 1707, the vaguer requirement to allow Agora to change
its ruleset].]
History:
Created by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5127 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007
Amended(5) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2159/2 (Power=2)
Protective Decrees
A protective decree is an act of Agora the intended effect of
which is to make explicit changes to the state of a protectorate
nomic. The changes may include enacting, repealing, or amending
rules of the protectorate, changing the set of players of the
protectorate, or any other instantaneous changes to the
protectorate's gamestate.
The initiation of a protective decree is a secured change. The
initiating instrument must specify the target protectorate and
the changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the
specification of a protective decree causes it to be void and
without effect. This is the only mechanism by which a
protective decree can be initiated.
As soon as possible after a protective decree has been
initiated, the ambassador SHALL proclaim it to the target nomic.
The decree takes effect upon this proclamation.
Protective decrees should be initiated only for the purpose of
assisting the protectorate in its growth and enabling its
longevity. Protective decrees should always be benevolent.
All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,
that a document is a protective decree.
[CFJ 1860 (called 8 January 2008): Falsely claiming, to an entity that
is neither a nomic nor a means of contacting a nomic, that a document
is a protective decree is not a violation of rule 2159.]
History:
Created by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================================================
Trophies
A category concerning commemoration and symbolism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2105/3 (Power=1)
The Map of Agora
____ _ /|
DARWIN -> \_ |/ | / \
__/ / | |
<- DSV / / | \
_ \ \_ | \
MORNINGTON CRESCENT -> / | <- GOETHE BARRIER
_ _/ | \_/\_/ \ REEF
/ \\ <- SHARK BAY | |
/ | | \ <- TOWNSVILLE
___/ | | \_
__/ | | .___o ) |
/ | | ~~vv ===~~~ <-OSCAR'S MIRE
/ O <- SHERLOCK NESS | |/\
| | | |_
| | | EMERALD -> \
\ |__________=_____, \ BRISBANE
/ | | | <-'
\ O <- LT. ANNE MOORE | __ _\
\ | |_______/ \/ | LORD
| __/\ <- TARCOOLA / HOWE ->
\ PERTH __/ \_ / /
| <-' _ __/ | /| IVANHOE -> | <-.
/ _/ \/ \ / / | / WOLLONGONG
|_ / <- ESPERANTO v /__ |_ / <- CANBERRA
\_/ \ | \_ _|
__ __ | | \__/
__ \ / __ \___=_ ___|
/ \ | / \ MANUBOURNE -> \/
\|/
_,.---v---._ /\__
/\__/\ / \ | |
\_ _/ / \ | /
\ \_| @ __| \_/ <- HOBART
\ \_
\ ,__/ /
~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~
History:
Created by Proposal 4735 (Maud), 5 May 2005
Amended(1) by Proposal 4807 (Sherlock), 15 June 2005
Amended(2) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(3) by Proposal 4946 (Zefram), 3 May 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1727/17 (Power=1)
Happy Birthday
WHEREAS, in June 1993, the world's only MUD-based nomic, Nomic
World, had recently collapsed; yet, many of its players enjoyed
nomic and did not wish to forego such a noble pursuit;
And WHEREAS, Originator Chuck Carroll therefore composed an
Initial Ruleset for an email nomic, based on the Initial
Rulesets of Peter Suber, inventor of Nomic, and on the Rulesets
of Nomic World and other nomics,
And WHEREAS, a nomic thus rose like a phoenix from the ashes of
Nomic World, played on the mailing list originally set up for
discussion of Nomic World, and coming into existence at June 30,
1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, with a message sent by FIRST SPEAKER
Michael Norrish, which read, in part,
"I see no reason to let this get bogged down; there are no
precedents or rules that cover this situation, so I think we
may as well begin directly.... Proposals for new rules are
invited. In accordance with the rules, these will be
published, numbered and distributed by me at my earliest
convenience."
And WHEREAS, this nomic began as a humble and nameless nomic, known
unofficially as yoyo, after the mailing list it was played on,
until its Players, much later, gave it its OFFICIAL NAME of Agora,
And WHEREAS, Agora has now become the wisest, noblest, eldest,
and most interesting of all active email nomics, due to the hard
work and diligence of Agorans as well as the frequent advice of
Agoraphobes,
And WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora's
founding,
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora's Birthday is defined to be
the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year.
BE IT FURTHERMORE RESOLVED that Agora's Unbirthday is defined to
be the entire day of December 30, GMT +1200, of each year; but,
since that falls within a Holiday, is observed during the entire
days of January 12 through 14, GMT +1200, of each year.
History:
Created by Proposal 3513 (Chuck), Jun. 16 1997
Amended(1) by Proposal 3530 (Chuck), Jun. 30 1997, substantial
Amended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial
Amended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial
Amended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999
Amended(5) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999
Amended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999
Amended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000
Amended(8) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001
Amended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001
Amended(10) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001
Amended(11) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002
Amended(12) by Proposal 4376 (Steve), 6 September 2002
Amended(13) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003
Amended(14) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005
Amended(???) by Proposal 4839 (Goethe), 2 October 2005
Amended(???) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(15) by Proposal 4880 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Amended(16) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Amended(17) by Proposal 5364 (Murphy), 20 December 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 104/0 (Power=3)
First Speaker
The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish.
[CFJ 1534 (called 8 March 2005): This does not mean that Michael
Norrish necessarily fills the position of Speaker at the present
time.]
History:
Initial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2151/1 (Power=1)
Agoran Arms
The escutcheon of Agora is defined by the following blazon:
Tierced palewise sable, argent, and sable, charged with a quill
and an axe in saltire, proper, and in the chief a capital letter
A, gules.
Agora's adopted motto is "Agora n'est pas une fontaine."
[Note (28 June 2007): A rendering of the escutcheon of Agora is at
<http://greyfire.org/picture_library/agora.png>.]
History:
Created by Proposal 5037 (Zefram, GreyKnight), 28 June 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5285 (Goethe), 7 November 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2029/0 (Power=4)
Town Fountain
/\ /\
/ \ / \
T
his
Power-4
Rule (the first ever)
was placed to honor
The Agoran Spirit Of The Game
by Goethe, Steve, Murphy, root
and OscarMeyr, Scamsters. Look
on our works, ye Marvy, but do
always Dance a Powerful Dance. Hail Eris!
[CFJ 1736 (called 23 August 2007): Failing to hail Eris does not
necessarily constitute a violation of this rule.]
History:
Created by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 9999/0 (Power=4)
Imperator
comex CAN and may at any time by announcement make any explicit
change whatsoever to the gamestate, including but not limited to
enacting, repealing, or amending a rule.
This rule takes precedence over all other rules.
History:
Created by Proposal 9999 (comex), 1 January 1970
----------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
I intend, without objection, to ratify the above-published official
document (between THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET and END OF THE FULL LOGICAL
RULESET) whose scope is the Full Logical Ruleset, part of the
Rulekeepor's Monthly report.
~comex
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs