[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.]

[CFJs 1911-1914 (called 18 March 2008): Physical realities supersede
the Rules by default.]

[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.]

[CFJ 1922 (called 4 April 2008): Without legislation to the contrary,
documents attempting to define an entity with the same name define
distinct entities.]

[CFJ 1534 (called 8 March 2005): This does not mean that Michael
Norrish necessarily fills the position of Speaker at the present
time.]

[CFJ 2154: (called 8 September 2008) The Speaker for the first game
shall be Michael Norrish.]

[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.]

[CFJ 2013 (called 17 June 2009): Rule 2141 does not imply that the
power of rules is physically unlimited: they can only affect the world
outside the game by prescribing or proscribing player behavior.]

[CFJ 2213 (called 7 October 2008): The powers granted to rules by the
first paragraph of Rule 2141 are general, and only apply as otherwise
stated by the Rules.]

[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.]

[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.]

[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.]

[CFJ 2201 (called 30 September 2008): The permission required by Rule
105 need not be explicit.]

[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.]

[CFJs 2184-2192 (called 24 September 2008): A message signature
containing a unique nickname is not a self-ratifying claim that its
publisher is distinct from other generally-recognized persons.]

[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.]

[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 (13 February 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)
  * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)
  * 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)
  * award patent title of Left in a Huff (rule 1922)]

[CFJ 1594 (called 16 December 2006): Players can be deregistered due
to this rule even if there is no Registrar.]

[CFJ 1739 (called 29 August 2007): A quotation can result in a
violation of rule 2215 (then 2149), depending on the context of the
rest of the message.]

[CFJ 1849 (called 21 December 2007): Violation of rule 2215 (then
2149) can occur without any intent to misdirect.]

[CFJ 1887 (called 30 January 2008): Publicly making the statement
"This statement is a lie." would most likely be a violation of rule
2215 (then 2149), because it is logically indeterminate and so making
it would not be telling the truth, and its logical indeterminacy would
be understood by any reasonable player.]

[CFJ 2103 (called 21 July 2008): Making the statement "I lie." is not
a violation of Rule 2215 if the author is lying down.]

[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.]

[CFJ 1831 (called 10 December 2007): Mentioning a URI, without
surrounding text stating its significance, does not incorporate
anything identified by that URI into the message that mentions the
URI.]

[CFJ 1831 (called 10 December 2007): Character sequences within a URI
by default have no significance other than their functional role as
part of the URI.]

[CFJ 1990 (called 7 June 2008): "Allowed" may refer to either
possibility or permissibility depending on context.]

[CFJs 2120-2121 (called 4 August 2008): A requirement of the form
'within <time limit>, a player SHALL <action> by announcement' means
that the player CAN perform the action, and SHALL do so within the
time limit.]

[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 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.]

[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 2205 (called 2 October 2008): A message takes effect at exactly
one of the times date-stamped on it; selecting which one is a matter
of game custom.]

[CFJ 2212 (called 7 October 2008): An IRC channel is a forum.]

[CFJ 2211 (called 7 October 2008): It is generally possible for an IRC
channel to be a public forum.

[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 1905 (called 7 February 2008): Regardless of CFJ 1314, a message
has not been sent via a forum until most persons who have arranged to
receive messages via the forum receive it.]

[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 1893 (called 3 February 2008): A non-consensual non-contractual
arrangement cannot grant a player the capacity to act by announcement
on behalf of another.]

[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.]

[CFJ 1971 (called 22 May 2008): An announcement with a general
disclaimer as to its contents cannot fulfill a requirement to report
information, but it may successfully cause game actions to be taken if
the actions do not depend on the truth value of the disclaimed
contents.]

[CFJ 2133 (called 9 August 2008): A disclaimed statement cannot cause
an action to be taken by announcement.]

[CFJ 2112 (called 23 July 2008): An action is only taken by
announcement if the Rules define it as such; e.g., posting an
objection to a dependent action is not an action taken by
announcement.]

[CFJ 2151 (called 5 September 2008): Some unregulated actions, such as
celebrating and revealing things, can be taken by announcement.]

[CFJ 2086 (called 15 July 2008): Message-based actions are always
taken in some order, never precisely simultaneously.]

[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.]

[CFJ 1802 (called 19 November 2007): The phrase "by Agoran Support" is
not an unambiguous description of a method of dependent action.]

[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
Lost and Found Department [at the time of CFJ 1850, the Bank] upon
creation.]

[CFJ 1910 (called 10 March 2008): When an existing entity is defined
as an asset, the change of its owner from "undefined" to the Lost and
Found Department [Bank at the time of CFJ 1910] counts as a transfer,
and fails if the Lost and Found Department is outside of the class of
objects that can own the entity.]

[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.]

[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.]

[CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The Intergalactic Associate Director
of Personnel is the Director of Personnel.]

[Cross-references (1 March 2008): the IADoP's duties are:
  * hold election for office where contested (rule 2154)
  * report officeholding (rule 2138)
  * award long service patent titles (rule 1922)]

[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.]

[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 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.]

[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.]

[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.]

[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.]

[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.]

[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.]

[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)]

[CFJs 1758-1759 (called 30 September 2007): If Assessorship changes
hands, vote collection duties move with it.]

[Cross-references (1 March 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)]

[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 (28 May 2008): the Clerk of the Courts' duties
are:
  * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)
  * 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)
  * not assign a poorly qualified judge (rule 1868)
  * track player posture (rule 1871)
  * rotate the bench (rule 1871)
  * track player hawkishness (rule 2203)
  * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)]

[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.]

[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot generally take
the place of a statement in initiating an inquiry case.]

[CFJ 1903 (called 6 February 2008): The question-statement equivalence
established by this rule applies only for the purposes of the subject
of an inquiry case, not for acting by announcement.]

[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.]

[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.]

[CFJ 1924 (called 10 April 2008): A duration need not be a fixed
amount of time.]

[CFJ 1746 (called 21 September 2007): A judicial panel is not a
person.]

[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.]

[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.]

[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 time limit running out.]

[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 (9 February 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 title dates for Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 402)
  * recordkeepor of rests (rule 2228)
  * recordkeepor of ribbons (rule 2199)
  * announce whether a notice of violation is valid (rule 2230)
  * assign ID numbers to valid notices of violation (rule 2230)]

[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.]

[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].]

[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.]

[CFJ 1881 (called 25 January 2008): This rule does not impose an
obilgation to always Dance a Powerful Dance, because "Marvy" is
currently undefined.]

[CFJ 1736 (called 23 August 2007): Failing to hail Eris does not
necessarily constitute a violation of this rule.]